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. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WhatLinksHere. This redirect is linked from the 9 June RFD log, where Great Collapse (2020) was deleted under a rationale that applies well here:
Implausible search term. I haven't seen any major news source using this term to refer to the coronavirus recession. The redirect also only had 7 pageviews from 12 May 2020.
[This one has eight pageviews during the same time.] So Delete for the same reason. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous consensus. While economies have collapsed during the current COVID-19 pandemic, this term isn't really synonymous with a "Great Collapse" (itself an ambiguous term, as pointed out by Pandakekok9 and Captain Galaxy over at the other discussion), and once that pandemic's over, this title will become obsolete. Regards, SONIC678 00:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my nom. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sonic678's mention of me. Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:07, 30 June 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.
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. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is not used at all in the article. What is used is Window Seat Films, which is not a comparable search term.
This redirect was found in reviewing Draft:Window Seat (film) because of the title collision. The film draft will be declined as too soon. The film may be released in a few months. However, the redirect is misleading. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enwiki currently has nothing substantive about a film called Window Seat. I added Window seat (film) to the nomination at the date/time of this comment. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:25, 1 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.
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 retargettoSiouxland. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) RetargettoNorth Sioux City, South Dakota. This is a very plausible search term given that Sioux City, Iowa and North Sioux City, South Dakota are essentially the same settlement and form a single metropolitan statistical area. Although it is theoretically ambiguous between all of the settlements literally 100% of the google results for "Sioux City, South Dakota" -Wikipedia down to page 5 were for North Sioux City. Even when I excluded "North Sioux City" from the search results most of the results were still for "North Sioux City", so in practice this is not an example of XY. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I considered Siouxland but (a) that is a much larger area, and (b) none of the google results were about that wider area, they were all for North Sioux City. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course Google results would primarily be for North Sioux City—it includes "Sioux City" in the name! In the same vein, "Sioux City, South Dakota" -North primarily gives results for Sioux Falls. That doesn't give good perspective of "what would someone want if searching for this", but rather how you're imputing words into a search engine. --Tavix(talk) 20:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What other metric do you have? If there were results for something other than North Sioux City they would appear in search results (at least this is true in other cases I've seen over the years and I have no evidence to suggest this is different). Our results for "Sioux City, South Dakota" -North seem to differ, which argues for disambiguation rather than redirecting to an article that we have no evidence anybody is looking for - it literally appeared zero times in my searching. Even if someone isn't looking for what the evidence suggests the overwhelming number of people are actually looking for then the article text and/or a hatnote can take them there with a single click. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What other metric do you have? Using critical thinking instead of spitting out Google results that don't accurately represent the question being asked. Any result having to do with "North Sioux City, South Dakota" would naturally be favored in a search for "Sioux City, South Dakota" due to how these cities are named. Meanwhile, Siouxland gives a good overview of the area and includes any city that someone would conceivably want with the search term "Sioux City, South Dakota", without being too broad. I oppose disambiguation because disambiguation pages are not for errors, and I oppose a retarget to only one of the possible cities per WP:XY. If consensus does not form to favor Siouxland, I prefer deletion. --Tavix(talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very strongly opposed to deletion because that option is the worst of all worlds for readers, retargetting to the obvious primary topic based on search results (including the content of those results not just the title) remains, for obvious reasons, my preferred result. If I was just going by titles of the google hits then Tavix might have a point, but I actually looked at those results. Disambiguation is a second choice because not doing so for plausible but ambiguous search terms because of Wikipedia's arbitrary internal style guidelines is just as stupid as deletion would be here - we are here to help readers find the content they are looking for, we should never require them to know whether their search term is correct beforehand. Siouxland is fine, but a third choice because if there is one thing the google results were unarguably clear on is that nobody searching for "Sioux City, South Dakota" is looking for that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a primary topic of an incorrect term. If we try to apply the WP:PTOPIC criteria, long-term significance is nonsense so we can only look at usage. But there are two ways of defining usage. One is what is most common in written sources, and is measured by things like Google results and n-grams. The other is what most readers are searching for, and is measured by pageviews. Perhaps it might be the case that most websites that use "Sioux City, South Dakota" refer to North Sioux City (which I don't even think is true; I found plenty of other results like [1]). That doesn't mean that most readers who type "Sioux City, South Dakota" into the search bar will be looking for that small town. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that one, as I find it much more likely for someone to misremember the second word of "Sioux Falls" (a city of 180,000) due to confusion with the Iowa city than to forget the first word of "North Sioux City" (population 2,500). The Google results are totally invalid because they include substrings, i.e. they do not differentiate when someone is using "Sioux City, South Dakota" on its own and when it forms part of a larger expression like "North Sioux City, South Dakota". I am neutralonSiouxland and oppose any individual city (North Sioux City, South Dakota particularly strongly). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sioux Falls error is plausible but less common based on the hits I see on Google - where even explicitly excluding "North Sioux City" still gave most hits relating to the portion of the single Sioux City-Sioux Falls-North Sioux City metropolitan area that was in South Dakota. Based on the contents (not just titles) of the google hits the explanation that seems most plausible to me is that people don't reliably distinguish North Sioux City and Sioux City, especially as the state does that when needed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Siouxland. Covers the general subject the person had in mind, without attempting to identify the location. Redirecting "X, State1" to "X, State2" is almost always confusing, if for no other reason than that it implies that a place in State1 is in, or was in, State2. (This is fine with boundary changes, e.g. Parkersburg, VirginiaorToledo, Michigan, since those are old names.) It's particularly significant here, since we don't know if the person is thinking of Sioux City and got the state wrong, or if the person's thinking of Sioux Falls and got a word wrong, or thinking of both and forgetting that they're separate cities. The only reason to keep this is if we have a general article that kind-of covers both, and the Siouxland article does that well. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoSiouxland. It's good in such cases to choose the broadest reasonable target, which is Siouxland here. For the purposes of readers searching this term specifically, it would be nice to have North Sioux City more prominent in the article, but that would probably be warping the content. Retargeting to North Sioux City, South Dakota would be my second choice, since I agree that disambiguating an erroneous term is to be avoided; I'm a bit ambivalent about the possibility of deleting and leaving it to search results. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 7 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.
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.
They should probably target the same template. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Paine Ellsworth who usually has valuable input regarding redirect tracking categories. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Template:R from subtopic. I think classifying a species as a "more specific" name for a subspecies is problematic, in contrast with classifying a subspecies as a subtopic of a species. --Bsherr (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: You appear to have reversed the relationship; R from subspecies to species is R from more specific name, not to. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Template:R from subtopic. While Template:R from more specific name isn't technically wrong, it's probably not the most intuitive. And we might want to just make these be templates with categories anyway; WT:TOL might care to have this categorization, since in many cases it'll indicate articles we need to write. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:38, 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.
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.
There are different F. Walkers on Wikipedia as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoWalker (surname) where every notable F. Walker should be listed, no one person is obviously the primary topic for "F. Walker". Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoWalker (surname) per Thryduulf, there's at least one person with the first initial F appearing in each of multiple sections of the page, plus other FrancisWalkers and even a short disambiguation page. Given that, there's really no primary topic. Regards, SONIC678 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of things and names can be abbreviated to "L.", but we target it to Carl Linnaeus because "L." is the standard abbreviation in biology for Linnaeus. See Author citation (zoology)#Initials for information. Same thing here: people looking for "F. Walker" are very likely to have encountered a reference to him in a biological context, and given the large numbers of entries at Walker (surname), it would be hard to find the desired one. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoWalker (surname). Zoologists aren't the only people known by their initial; and, unlike biologists botanists, there is no formal standardisation of their names. Further, it is difficult enough to find and fix bad links to surname pages, but bad links to articles are much worse. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 30 June 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.
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. — Wug·a·po·des 02:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem like a plausible search term for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is related to the target. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure this redirect is the complete opposite of the target article. You would literally be the opposite of silent here. Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:11, 30 June 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.
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.
Target doesn't mention a species starting with С. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the taxobox Colomerus vitis (which also redirects to the same target) is a synonym, and that is the name used to categorise pictures of this species on Commons - Commons:Category:Colomerus vitis. My limited understanding of taxonomy is that everyone agrees which is primary and which is a synonym, which suggests Wikipedia and Commons should be the same but I'll ping the taxonomy project for more knowledgeable input on that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it doesn't have to be the case; it might be that taxonomists disagree whether a species belongs to one genus or another, or whether a group should be lumped into one genus, or split into several. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:59, 29 June 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.
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 retargettoBritish royal family and hatnote there to Monarchy of the United Kingdom#English monarchy. There's a valid contradiction between technical accuracy and pragmatism here. Ultimately the rough consensus among later participants seems to be the best compromise - a reader who was looking for the history of the English family is unlikely to be confused by a hatnoted article about the British family. Conversely, the reader who was just inaccurately searching for the current British royal family is more likely to be confused by the very broad and general Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#English_monarchy article section. ~ mazcatalk 22:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-enabled the redirect to point to House of Windsor for now as this is a high-traffic redirect and the current target is helpful – though perhaps not as helpful as it would if it pointed to another target. We don't want readers confronted with a maintenance template. — J947[cont] 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned about that decision and have reverted. We want users of this redirect to weigh in on it. By "reenabling" the redirect, those users are unaware that the redirect target will probably change. --Tavix(talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like readers do weigh in often at all from my experience. Perhaps there needs to be more discussion about this; either way, I will refrain from cheating around the RfD template in future. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is uninterested in participating, it's trivial to just click on through. It's not trivial if someone does want to participate, and not being notified of the discussion costs that reader a chance to do so. People don't often say how they found the discussion, so it probably happens more often then we take credit for, but when someone comes to a discussion from following the redirect and then explaining their experience with it is oftentimes my favorite perspective to hear from. --Tavix(talk) 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above, but add a hatnote to the current target as the incorrect meaning is at least as common as the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig. The point of a redirect is to help the reader get to the article they are looking for, not to be pedantically correct. I can't imagine any substantial number of people searching for "English royal family" want the Plantagenets or the Tudors, as opposed to the Windsors. The few incoming links tend to be historical, but I suspect we are looking at the ones that couldn't be easily disambiguated to a specific house. A disambig page along the lines of Queen of England would be appropriate, pointing to both the correct historical meaning, and the current royal house of the United Kingdom.--Trystan (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's pedantic to say that the "English royal family" is not the same as the "House of Windsor". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would be being pedantic if we implemented a solution that didn't take into account the possibility that British royal family is what the searcher is looking for. I'd support a link to Monarchy of the United Kingdom with no section link, as you suggest below.--Trystan (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Micericky and hatnote target section per Thryduulf. England hasn't had a royal family since 1707. Narky Blert (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per suggestion above, but as the term may be misunderstood, I would target the article without a section link, rather than using a section link and a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this suggestion, about equally with my own. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (to section) with hatnote - Just to clarify our position here, quite a few USA-ians incorrectly believe that "England" consists of London, Scotland, and "Ireland" (although they may be vaguely aware that the latter is or was subject to some sort of disagreement). They've never heard of Wales or the rest of England proper, and may misinterpret "Northern Ireland" as merely a geographic term (i.e. the northern part of "Ireland"). If you ask them about "the UK," they may believe "Oh, that's the correct name for England now," because last time they tried to refer to the sovereign state as "England," they were corrected by someone more knowledgeable. So yes, this is definitely a point of confusion for my countrymen, and a hatnote would be very much in order. But we shouldn't DABify or target the whole article, because this is already a good WP:NATURALDIS title. --NYKevin 17:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoBritish royal family, more or less per NYKevin's argument even though he had selected a different target. --Tavix(talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since this redirect technically wasn't tagged for almost the entire discussion, I recommend relisting to give users of the redirect an opportunity to weigh in on its future. --Tavix(talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per User:Tavix's comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoBritish royal family per Tavix, with apologies for making a close more difficult. We must accept that the great majority of readers, especially those outside of or unfamiliar with Commonwealth conventions, will be looking for the British royal family. And while "English royal family" is not the proper name for the family, I would argue it is not wrong as a purely descriptive title, inasmuch as it is the only current royal family which is in any way English. A hatnote going the other way might be workable, but part of what pushed me away from Monarchy of the United Kingdom#English monarchy is the paucity of information there about any royal family as such (outside of sporadic mentions of family members and houses). --BDD (talk) 17:54, 7 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.
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 and hatnote. Deryck C. 02:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous phrase, not mentioned at the target. While there is a legal term by this name associated with the ADA, this phrase is also used in myriad other contexts. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 01:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A reader who wants to know what the term means in UK law (Equality Act 2010, example link) will get no help from an article about a US statute. Narky Blert (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, an article about it can be useful for an American, a British or an Indian. BoldLuis (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Legal terms have different meanings in different jurisdictions. Narky Blert (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert has written no single line here ;-). On the other hand, not applied here the surprise where you directed : "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently." ;-?BoldLuis (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would be a lot stronger if you added a duly-sourced mention to the target. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why cannot could be written now?. The article is defective and can be improved, by you, me and anyother. And it must include definitions, specilly if they are as clear as this for disabilities. 10:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to make sure that contributions you make are actually useful as of when you make them. While Wikipedia is collaborative, you can't make a literal bridge to nowhere and demand someone else to fill it in. Take some responsibility for your contributions and clean up after yourself. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. By you, by me and any other one. You know I helped to improve a lot of articles, as I see it the most useful paper here in Wikipedia.BoldLuis (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate or provide a hatnote at the current target Deleting this redirect will not benefit Wikipedia and will only frustrate people with disabilities. Keeping it as it is will not help non-American readers either. Either create a dab page consisting of the current target and Equality Act 2010, or create a hatnote at Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 linking to Equality Act 2010. Or both, if we could find more instances of "auxiliary aid" in a non-American context. --im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 04:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I provided, it is clear in the sphere of us, the handicaped. So a definition for disability it is clear, as said by the user and me. BoldLuis (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried drafting a disambiguation page, but the two WP:DABMENTIONs I can find are pretty terrible. (I'm neutral, feel free to delete my dab page.) OTOH, it is worth noting that since we're not trying to create an article about auxiliary aid, just a disambiguation, the fact that the phrase "auxiliary aid" is common doesn't particularly matter - we only need to guide readers to uses of "auxiliary aid" which are actual topics. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dab The current redirect is promoting the American use of the term, which is not what all the world will be expecting to see. Either redirect as misleading, or create a dab for all the relevant terms. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I appreciate the IP's drafting of a disambiguation page, and the admission that it's still shaky. The nominator has successfully demonstrated that the term is used in many contexts, and to borrow a Wiktionary criterion, it seems like a non-idiomatic phrase, possibly referring to any aid which is auxiliary. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, but I'm not sure what to do after that. So long as we have significant content on "auxiliary aid", like we do at Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990#Auxiliary aids, a redlink would be doing a disservice to those trying to find content on the subject. I appreciate the sentiment that the term isn't exclusive to this context. However, the disambiguation is shaky because there really isn't much content on other types of auxiliary aids in other jurisdictions. Probably the best solution would be to turn this into an article with a section for auxiliary aids in each jurisdiction, with a see also hatnote on top of the American section to Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990#Auxiliary aids. For now though, maybe the best actionable solution would be to retarget to that ADA section, with a hatnote to the UK article, which reflects the status quo of which articles have the most relevant content. --Tavix(talk) 15:24, 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) 16:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refine (to "auxiliary aids" section) or DAB - There is significant relevant content at the current target. We don't delete redirects for ambiguity, so something ought to exist at this title. If there's no content on non-American usages, then tag {{R with possibilities}} and/or {{R to subtopic}}. --NYKevin 04:05, 3 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.
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, Rosguilltalk 21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CNR to templatespace. Really can't see it's usefulness for any purpose, other than if someone needs to emergency-read the docum. Gaioa (TCL) 12:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95:R2 would not apply for this redirect, template is one of the exception namespaces. --Tavix(talk) 13:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I see that now. Maybe my reading eyes are not working today, but I don't see a good rationale for redirects to Template space in the reasons at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. I suppose that a redirect from article space to something like Template:Nations at the 1976 Summer Olympics, which resembles article content and links to articles, might make sense, but linking to {{infobox book}}, a tool for building pages, doesn't make sense from article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article to template redirects are excluded from speedy deletion because sometimes they are appropriate (e.g. List of books of the Bible → Template:Books of the Bible) and even when they aren't there is very often an article space target that is as good or better to which they can be retargetted. This doesn't mean that no such redirect should be deleted, just that they need to be discussed individually. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the bits about books of the Bible demonstrates why this shouldn't be speedy, but the nomination demonstrates why this shouldn't be kept. Who needs to access an infobox template aside from editors? And editors really should know that templates begin with "Template:". Nyttend backup (talk) 10:26, 30 June 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.
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.
Keep The disambiguation is, in fact, quite necessary, since African language properly refers to one of the Languages of Africa. While I'm not sure this imagined, stereotyped language will ever merit more than a sentence, it's at least worth a mention, so the redirect takes readers where they want to go. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDD. Even if the disambiguation wasn't necessary that would not be a reason to delete the redirect because they facilitate searches and guarantee working links should the primary topic change (c.f. Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation for over 22,000 other examples). Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 29 June 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.
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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my best guess as to the origin of this redirect is that it is the (or at least a) correct transliteration of the Russian『Бугель』which is the technical term for a bow collector in that language (ru:Бугель is a disambiguation page, the article is at ru:Бугельный токоприёмник which google translate renders as "arc current collector"). There is no particular affinity between the target and Russian - bow collectors were invented in Germany and used around the world. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the stray apostrophe. --Tavix(talk) 21:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the apostrophe is not stray when this is a transliteration of the Russian term. Opposing retargetting to Bugel because of a stray apostrophe is not (to the limited extent I've looked) factually problematic, as is not targetting Bow collector per WP:RFOREIGN but mixing the two is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thryduulf. It wouldn't make a good redirect to Bugel because of the apostrophe, and while this is necessary to render the Russian soft sign properly, there's no need for Russian anything here, since it's not a Russian topic. Russians would write in Cyrillic anyway, not in Latin. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:14, 29 June 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.
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. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is completely unnecessary as such capitalization is very unlikely and it isn't or ever was called that. There is no need for unnecessary redirects that no-one will ever use, so it should be deleted or renamed to something that is more commonly used as an alternative name for iOS.the ultraUsurper (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 186 page views last year show this is a redirect that people very much do use. The first letter of page names on Wikipedia is case insensitive so this is the same page the correctly capitalised i-OS. Also note the nominator has been blocked for disruptive editing. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've closed this early because it was created by a sockpuppet, the master of whom was blocked for disruptive editing related to page creation and redirects earlier. I was going to remove it outright but since Thryduulf had replied, I've closed it. If anyone feels this should have remained open anyways, please feel free to revert. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 29 June 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.
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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target (disambiguation) buidhe 00:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously an intentional misspelling of "fuck" and should be retargetted there if not deleted, but it's very uncommon and while I could I think write a Wiktionary entry that would meet that project's criteria for inclusion there is so much noise in the search results that I'm not certain. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do know this a common misspelling used by people to work pass censorship, when looking this up (which I recommend you don't if you're quite young) will lead to porn. As such it would remain an unhelpful redirect. Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:36, 29 June 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 7#PFTAWBLQPZVEMU-DZGCQCFKSA-N
