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]

• Ambush at Ithilien → The Lord of the Rings#Ambush in Ithilien  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete. Enwiki does not appear to have information about "Ambush at Ithilien". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title seems to come from this. The ambush is dealt with in one paragraph in the chapter "The Black Gate Opens" in The Return of the King. There is no need of a redirect.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 31 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 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]

• Isy Allon → Geir Isene  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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.

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 93 → United Airlines Flight 93  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete per nom and subsequent discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 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 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]

• List of Latin trap artist → Latin trap  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete unlikely search term with singular ending. List of Latin trap artists is red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 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 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]

• Independence Bowl (bowl game) → Independence Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Keep. The target literally is a bowl game, so {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} applies to this redirect, leaving the redirect harmless to keep and deletion doesn't benefit anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. OK, given that context, I withdraw the request (not sure how to close). Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:10, 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 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]

• Independence Bowl (game) → Independence Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Keep. Target is a game of some sort, so {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} applies, leaving this redirect harmless to keep and deletion doesn't benefit anyone. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. OK, given that context, I withdraw the request (not sure how to close). Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:10, 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 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]

• Template:AthleticsAt1984WorldChampionships → Template:1983 World Championships in Athletics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete per nom. Also, in case it means anything, at the present time, this redirect has no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 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 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]

• Priyanka Reddy Rape Case → 2019 Hyderabad gang rape  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Keep Delete While we are at it we should also take care of Draft:Priyanka Reddy Rape Case and Draft:Priyanka Reddy These redirects were useful when the event was in the news, but I guess we can delete them now. I would request the closing admin to mention the link 2019 Hyderabad gang rape in the deletion summary so as to inform folks who are unaware of the existing article and try to create a duplicate article at these location. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per DBigXray. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If someone knows the victim's name and is seeking information, it is helpful to have the redirect. Using the victim's name in the redirect does NOT violate the target article editors' consensus to omit the victim's name. The redirect is NOT a backwards link (except for those in the know who click on "What links here", and even then you get over 50 results). I get it, the reason for omitting the victim's name from the article is well-debated on the Talk page [4] but that doesn't mean that a redirect violates even the spirit of that decision. Normal Op (talk) 16:30, 28 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 DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - swayed by Normal Op's observation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 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.

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 → Headstone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Comment: If we're going by popularity, Tombstone (film) is a more popular target than both (page views). Maybe we should consider moving the dab page to the plain title?—ShelfSkewed Talk 18:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Tombstone is the usual British English word for headstone. I'd prefer to see Tombstone as the base name for the DAB page (which would need a WP:RM) rather than being a redirect to anywhere. Narky Blert (talk) 19:27, 13 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 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Move (disambiguation) over redirect I can't image the businesses and other locations that carry the name are named after the town first rather than the stone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move disambiguation to the base title. Google suggests that Tombstone (film) is perhaps the primary topic, but I think that would be surprising for many people. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move disambiguation to the base title per Thryduulf._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Tombstone (disambiguation) to Tombstone per above. In related news, I now want a pizza. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a lot of incoming links. I see consensus to move, but are we comfortable leaving this to the disambiguation cleanup team? --BDD (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Tombstone" in a general sense has greater long-term significance over the other derivative usages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. While above comments suggest that tombstone is a Britishism, as a speaker of Western American English, tombstone is my standard word for headstone as well and that is the first thing that jumps to mind when I think of the word. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is – I'm also an AmE speaker and this usage seems quite common. If there is a primary topic, this is it; the film's name is derived from the town, which is in turn derived from headstone, so it would seem rather strange and unnatural to label either of those as the primary topic. Alternatively, I would also be fine with the above-described move of the dab if the current use is not established as the primary topic. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Tombstone" should redirect to Tombstone (disambiguation). Create a new redirect for "Tombstone (Headstone)" that points to Headstone, so when users are typing "t-o-m-b-s-t-o-n-e" in the search bar, they are offered a series of choices and can choose the 'headstone' option. (I have no idea which keyword I should use to highlight this !vote, since neither Keep nor Delete nor Redirect seemed quite right. However, I heartily disagree with Nom's suggestion.) Normal Op (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The preferred redirect would be Tombstone (headstone) since capitalizing "headstone" in the disambiguator would be considered WP:COSTLY since "headstone" is not a proper noun when referring to the grave marker. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 28 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 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]

• The Gordon Infantry Brigade → 153rd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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

• Retarget to Gordon Highlanders or, alternatively, keep as it seems to be a semi-common colloquial nickname for the 153rd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), possibly with a hatnote to Gordon Highlanders. In either case, it may be appropriate to add clarity (via a hatnote or in the Lede) as to this nickname.--Doug Mehus T·C 15:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The only use of the phrase on Wikipedia is at Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet. From the context, I think Gordon Highlanders is the more likely usage, but the phrase isn't linked, and it's hard to tell. I was leaning weak delete on this basis, but I bet someone from MILHIST could clear this up. I'll notify them. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 21 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]

• Delete unless or until the nickname gets a general discussion somewhere. From reading this discussion, I'm thoroughly confused where the best place to do that would be, so I can't imagine this redirect being helpful in the interim. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tavix. I'm still confused here. The search results will give some access to both units (assuming they are separate units?), and as things stand, I don't think we can do much better for readers. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gordon Highlanders. There's a fair amount of confusion here, but having read over this multiple times it looks like we have an RS establishing a link between this redirect title and Gordon Highlanders, and have failed to find evidence that it's used as a name for the current target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while there's virtually no evidence of any widespread use of this rather vague term to describe the current target, the single dubious source to support pointing it at Gordon Highlanders is hardly compelling either; it seems to vaguely imply that the Gordon Highlanders (a regiment, not a brigade) may have in some way been part of the "Gordon Infantry Brigade" without any further info. Equally, that Wikipedia article also doesn't mention the term. This redirect does not, to me, seem to help any hypothetical reader. ~ mazca ^talk 02:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Closure requested at WP:ANRFC. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:32, 13 January 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 disambiguate. Seeing no objections to my proposed dab page, I'm closing this. wbm1058 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Television app → Smart TV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

• TV app → Apple TV (software)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Keep both with an explanatory hatnote at Apple TV (software). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. I just added an explanatory hatnote at Apple TV (software), and retargeted the "television app" redirect to a specific section of the smart TV page (discussing platforms for apps) and moved the hatnote to that section. Infoman99 (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix this somehow. As noted by the nom, these generic redirects, one for the abbreviated TV app and one for Television app, are pointing to separate locations. I thought of redirecting both to a dab page, but which one? Thus, this is my !vote; or,

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]

• Retarget both to Over-the-top media services as {{R from subtopic}} since 1) the subject(s) of these redirects are the same subject, so it does not make sense for them to target two different topics and 2) "Over-the-top media services" describes what the subject(s) of these redirects are (unless "delete per WP:REDLINK" is an option, which I do not believe to be helpful); neither of these redirects are exclusive to their current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Official vote withdrawn. See my comment/vote change below. Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I just noticed that TV (app) is a redirect towards Apple TV (software). I'm thinking it should be added to this discussion. Also, if TV app is retargeted, its new target should have a {{Redirect}} hatnote on it directing readers to Apple TV (software). (Note: I still stick by my "Retarget both to Over-the-top media services" comment for the originally nominated redirects; not so sure if that would apply to TV (app).) Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 23 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]

• This is a mess. I'm also very skeptical of pointing to the Apple app, but beyond that, I don't know what the best target is. I was leaning towards Smart TV, thinking it was a broader concept than Over-the-top media services. But you can use OTP services with a "dumb" TV, and a smart TV need not use OTP services. (Right? I'm not too knowledgeable about this area myself.) I'm at a loss. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Regarding "...But you can use OTP services with a "dumb" TV, and a smart TV need not use OTP services. (Right? I'm not too knowledgeable about this area myself.) I'm at a loss." You might have been ready to hear this ... that is incorrect. Any "TV application", whether it's on a "dumb TV" or a "smart TV", is an "over-the-top" (OTT) service. I think the article describes the concept the same way I know it: No matter what type of TV the television app is on, the app is an OTT service. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, so it's "over the top" in the sense of "over the heads of the TV companies", not a more literal, "device on top of the TV". I suppose retarget to Over-the-top media services, then. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 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]

• Retarget both to Over-the-top media services, which covers the use of apps to receive "Internet TV" content, and to get "TV content" from a device onto a TV, and to run an app on a smart TV directly, so all bases are covered. TV (app) should continue to point at Apple TV (software); that's a different kind of article title (name of a work or product, followed by a type disambiguation; the only notable app named "TV" is the one known in long form as "Apple TV").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Neither should be retargeted to over-the-top media services. An app running on a television need not be used for streaming media. In fact, many apps available for television software platforms do not involve streaming media at all. For example, they can provide news and weather, or pro sports scores. Or the app can be a small video game, entirely self-contained and without any external server.

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]

• Retarget both to Smart TV#Platforms. I prefer "apps on the television" as a more literal interpretation over "apps that you use to watch television". I've linked to over-the-top media services there, so it's one click away from the other sense. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 26 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]

• Annoyed that Apple TV (software) has lingered in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review since November 11, I arrive here with the objective of closing this. I note that these two redirects were both created by Infoman99 within three minutes of each other on 14 October 2019‎, so there is no indication that these are widely recognized terms having established common usage and primary meanings. The "mess" of a discussion above confirms that there is no consensus primary topic for these terms, so I concur with Steel1943 that if these aren't deleted, we must disambiguate. I just created Television app (disambiguation) and propose moving that to Television app, and retargeting TV app to Television app. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, if you asked me for an example of a "TV app", I would say Yahoo Sports app, which I used to watch an NFL game last year on my (Android) phone. The experience was "interesting", but the speed of my mobile service wasn't quite up to the task, and on top of that it $cost me data charges. wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 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 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 Tribe (2008 film) → After Dusk They Come  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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.

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]

• She who lives → Aisha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Retarget to A'isha (name): "A'isha (Arabic: عائشة‎, romanized: ʿĀʾisha, lit. 'she who lives' or 'womanly';...". Actually A'isha (name) could probably do with being moved to Aisha (name), but that's a separate issue. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:25, 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]

• Delete Zhiva also means "she who lives" (see Deities of Slavic religion), and in any case I don't think literal translations of names are likely search terms or links that they require either redirects or disambiguation (I remember some debates about this from several years ago but can't find them offhand). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 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.

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]

• Dolphins (2018 film) → Dolphin Reef (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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.

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]

• LilyPad → Arduino  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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

• Delete, even if it should exist, it should be named "Arduino LilyPad", similar to "Arduino Uno" article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lily pad (disambiguation) shows that "LilyPad" with the capital P is a unique name for an Arduino product. The product is commonly called just LilyPad so how one could find out one should type "Arduino LilyPad" into Wikipedia to find it? But whatever, I do not plan to argue here more about one link. Jankratochvil (talk) 08:53, 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]

• Keep Whether one argues that "LilyPad" is ambiguous or not, deletion is out of the question. If it is not, then the redirect points at the right place, and any potential confusion is resolved through the target's hatnote. If it is ambiguous, then there should still be a redirect to the disambiguation page.

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]

• Keep per Paradoctor. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:43, 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.

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]

• Lee Joon-Hoo → Lee Byung-hun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• Joon-Hoo Lee → Lee Jun-ho  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

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]

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

• These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. → Dietary supplement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. → Dietary supplement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. → Dietary supplement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease → Dietary supplement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

• These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration → Dietary supplement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dietary supplements exist in many countries, but the proposed redirect applies to label language required in the U.S. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget the last two to Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994#Dietary supplement labels as {{R from quote}}. I agree with the nominator that these probably aren't likely search terms (particularly the ones with periods on the ends); on the other hand, the law which originated this phrasing is certainly a better target than any of the other appearances of the phrase in Wikipedia (random articles about individual medicines and such). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t think the target is appropriate. A page on the law might be better but the one mentioned above doesn’t cite the terms explicitly. Seemingly very unlikely search terms too. Lineslarge (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: The target page has a #Regulatory compliance section mentioning the FDA. As a subsection of #Controversy that's very odd, and it doesn't mention why these statements are redirects, e.g., verbatim copies from dietary supplements sold in the US could make sense, but un-sourced US-centric statements are not helpful. –84.46.52.46 (talk) 12:50, 31 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 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]

• Disappearing → Disappear  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Disambiguate. I started a draft disambiguation page below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 07:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per EurekaLott. The draft lists topics that could be legitimately referred to by this title. Glades12 (talk) 14:39, 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.

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]

• Hudukula → Karnataka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete. There is nothing about "Hudukula" at Karnataka. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:25, 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.

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]

• Digland → Karnataka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

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]

• Delete. There is nothing about "Digland" at Karnataka. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:26, 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.