December 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2019.

Ambush at Ithilien

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) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, and it redirects to a section of the same name that no longer exists. [1] Has 79 views so far this year (as of time of writing). Hog Farm (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (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.

Isy Allon

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) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find any indication that this is a pseudonym or alternative name of the target (in which this name is not mentioned). A 2013 post on Isene's blog is tagged with this name, but the connection is not explained. The sole incoming link from MEGA Role-Playing System also does little to clarify things. It may be the case that this is a name used by Isene, but in the absence of any reliable sources making the connection the redirect is more likely to confuse the reader than to aid them. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2019 (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.

UL 93

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) 18:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UL is not an abbreviation for United Airlines. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so because this is not the only redirect for an air accident: JL123, you might wanna check that out. Signed by The person who should not be named (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online, it seems that JL is used as an alternative callsign for Japan Airlines (alongside their other callsign, JAL [2]). The same website lists United's callsigns as UAL and UA, but not UL ([3]). signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I now agree, at first I thought UL was a callsign, but now I believe that I was wrong. signed by, The person who should not be named (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2019 (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 Latin trap artist

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. What, was there only one? --BDD (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such list at the target (and also a minor typo in the redirect title). I would suggest deletion until such a list exists. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 27 December 2019 (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.

MWCA

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 3#MWCA

FC2103

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 3#FC2103

Independence Bowl (bowl game)

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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for this redirect, as there is no Independence Bowl (stadium) or similar to differentiate from. What-links-here shows this page is orphaned. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2019 (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.

Independence Bowl (game)

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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious redirect, there is no "Independence Bowl (stadium)" or similar that requires differentiation. What-links-here confirms this redirect is unused _except_ for #ifexists usage in a bowl game template, which will otherwise directly use Independence Bowl on its own. That is, removing this redirect will not break anything. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2019 (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.

Template:AthleticsAt1984WorldChampionships

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) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no athletics championship in 1984 so this redirect is implausible and an unlikely search term. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2019 (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.

Twisted Ranch

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 4#Twisted Ranch

Priyanka Reddy Rape Case

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. Withdrawing this as Normal Op has made good points and convinced everyone voting delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there's a consensus at the target article to not include mentions of the victim's name. If that's the case, we probably shouldn't have this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Redirects are cheap and I agree with Normal Op above, that they are useful search term and dont violate the concerns on the talk page. Thats one of the reasons why I did not nominate them for deletion myself. The Drafts though are pointless now, and they can be deleted. Normal Op what is your opinion on the drafts ? do you want to keep them as well ? Kautilya3 fyi I have jumped the ship. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXray 20:05, 28 December 2019 (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.

Tombstone

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Certainly consensus against retargeting to the Arizona town, but otherwise very divided on keeping or moving the disambiguation page over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone, Arizona is a much more popular subject than Headstone, to which Tombstone redirects (see page views). We should retarget Tombstone to Tombstone, Arizona and change the hatnotes and lead at Tombstone (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. A tombstone is not always a headstone: "Put tombstones at my head and feet", from the folk song "There Is a Tavern in the Town". Narky Blert (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. The gravestone is the original meaning, even if the city and the film are the most popular meanings as measured by Google hits. No WP:TOPIC, because of the centuries-old original meaning. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the links to Tombstone should be to the city or the film: they must be cleaned up (regular DABfixers deal with this sort of problem every day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narky Blert (talkcontribs) 14:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day, especially considering that the majority of RFD regulars (who also close discussions) have participated in this discussion. Per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and you shouldn't redirect Tombstone to Tombstone (disambiguation) because the disambiguation page would be WP:MALPLACED. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2019 (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 Gordon Infantry Brigade

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. There is consensus to delete the current redirect. There is no consensus to retarget it to Gordon Highlanders. Sandstein 07:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article PamD 17:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err do we have any sources using the term Gordon Infantry Brigade?Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Article doesn't have to mention the exact name, if we can confirm this name was a colloquial term for a particular brigade or regiment. Thanks for checking, BDD. Doug Mehus T·C 16:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but at least one RS does, otherwise why is anyone going to look for it? In fact the more I think about it the more this becomes a delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven I hope you don't mean WP:RSP, which is just a guideline, not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. This link seems to suggest Gordon Highlanders is correct. - Doug Mehus T·C 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note the British Library hosts and maintains the above site, so they would've at least reviewed it to a certain extent. We can trust that source. Doug Mehus T·C 20:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this book link. Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the sort of thing, I think a redirect to The 153rd Infantry Brigade is in order, as that is the formation it was the nick name for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes that consensus becomes clearer, especially considering that at the least, consensus seems to currently be against keeping the redirect as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2019 (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.

Television app

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 disambiguate. Seeing no objections to my proposed dab page, I'm closing this. wbm1058 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that these redirects should be pointing at different targets. I'm generally loathe to target redirects about a generic product/service to a specific example, but as the default television app on Apple devices Apple TV (software) has some claim to the name "TV app", whereas Smart TV covers much more than just the "app" function. I'd appreciate other people's thoughts on how to handle these redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget both to Smart TV, possibly to a specific section meaning television apps; or,
Retarget both to the target identified by Steel1943. This may be better.

--Doug Mehus T·C 15:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943:, go ahead and add TV (app) to the discussion. I'd have no problem with that. Agree it should be targeted to the same place. Or, feel free to boldly do it post RfD close. I have no problem with either. Doug Mehus T·C 00:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Can't properly now since today is not 21 November 2019. The redirect would not get a full 7-day discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I did say you could retarget TV (app) post-RfD close. As for adding the third redirect, since we're not advocating deletion, I don't think one day makes a difference, particularly since we can just retarget post-RfD close as an alternative to deletion. Even if we were advocating deletion, in Trade and commerce, I added to the discussion Trade and Commerce when BDD asked about it when he or she relisted Trade and commerce. So, it's probably OK. We're not so fussy. Doug Mehus T·C 01:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...No thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my comments below, I'm tentatively fine with TV (app) if it's the only notable app simply known as "TV". --BDD (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, ah, had you not known how the term "over-the-top" to refer to Internet television streaming services was derived? It's always fun when we learn something new in an RfD discussion. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if we should separately rename Over-the-top media services to Over-the-top streaming services per WP:COMMONNAME? --Doug Mehus T·C 17:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still support the different redirects for TV app and television app, but if they must point to the same place, they should point to Smart TV#Platforms. Infoman99 (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that a reader is looking up "...An app running on a television..." when looking up these terms, given that apps can also run on computers and mobile devices. And since all apps for traditional televisions services are over-the-top media services (as defined in the article), it looks to be the best and most helpful target for readers. Also, not all streaming services are apps, so Streaming media would not be an appropriate target for this redirect since it's not a precise as Over-the-top media service. Also, when you talk about apps that "...provide news and weather, or pro sports scores...", what specifically are you talking about? I ask because most of those are subjects unrelated to anything discussed here or the redirects' subjects themselves, and thus I believe mentioning those subjects here as an attempt to invalidate the nominated redirects targeting Over-the-top media service is a red herring. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Geez, I just realized now that these redirects are ambiguous. Do they refer to apps that are over-the-top media services that are not exclusive to smart TVs, or do they refer to apps on a smart TV in a general sense that are not exclusively over-the-top media services? Ugh, it's enough for me to withdraw my vote ... and now advocate for either deletion or disambiguation as vague. (Note: This statement does not apply to the not-nominated TV (app), which should remain as it is.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was I right after all? :) --BDD (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...@BDD: I honestly don't know anymore, given that you referenced some sort ""device on top of the TV"" thing... 😂 ...but, either way, yeah, I'm no longer convinced any target is an appropriate WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate after seeing Wbm1058's disambiguation. I had thought to dab it when reviewing this, but I couldn't get one to make sense in my mind. After seeing one drafted, I now see that is the best solution. Good work! -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. Per WP:RELIST, this can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (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 Tribe (2008 film)

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) 18:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film was released in 2009, and since there are several other films with the title (see Tribe (disambiguation)#Film), I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2019 (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.

She who lives

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) 18:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reference to this book but the Aisha in the Book doesnt seem to be the same as Aisha, the target of the redirect. Additionally, the book is not notable and I cant think of another target. SharabSalam (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nb A'isha (name) has now been moved to Aisha (given name). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:45, 27 December 2019 (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.

Saffron Barker

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Saffron Barker

Dolphins (2018 film)

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) 18:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that this film was released in 2018 as Dolphins. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2019 (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.

LilyPad

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete; non-notable fgnievinski (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you could, the RFD policy is "redirects are cheap", and LilyPad is mentioned on the target page (text + photo + reference), but it muddies the waters for an unrelated Lilypad redirection and an existing DAB Lily pad covering Arduino. (Incorrectly at the moment, a DAB row must have exactly one wikilink.) –84.46.53.228 (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As regards choosing the target, I don't see how one would intentionally enter "LilyPad" instead of "Lilypad" when looking for any of the other subjects listed on the disambiguation page. Paradoctor (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Notability is not at issue. If a redirect topic was notable, it wouldn't be a redirect. See also WP:IGNORINGATD. Paradoctor (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:39, 27 December 2019 (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.

Lee Joon-Hoo

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) 18:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two different forms of the same name, pointing to different places. The first redirect is the name of a child pointing to his father; however, his mother Lee Min-jung is also notable and the child is mentioned there, so we have an WP:XY problem. The second is an implausible misspelling; "Ho" is not spelled "Hoo" in any formal or ad hoc Korean romanisation. I prefer deleting both redirects and letting the search engine do its job of finding both articles where the child is mentioned; as a distant second choice, they should at least point to the same target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:37, 27 December 2019 (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.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could this redirect be found useful? I don't see why this title is likely to be searched for, and could potentially point to multiple targets. Some of these I would imagine should redirect to the Food and Drug Administration, but this is not the case. Maybe it's just me on this one though, as a form of this statement appears on the labels of dietary supplements. I can see where the creator was going with this. My take is that it's an unlikely search term to an ambiguous target. Utopes (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2019 (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.

Disappearing

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 disambiguate. Sounds good to me, so I'll withdraw this. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to have this deleted. As a quasi-title match to a disambiguation page, this could go to Disappear or Disappearance. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2019 (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.

Hudukula

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bizarre redirect from the name of a village to the state where that village is located (together with thousands of other villages). – Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2019 (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.

Digland

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created apparently as a nickname, but I haven't been able to verify with a quick web search that Karnataka is indeed called "Digland". – Uanfala (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2019 (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.