Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 19, 2019.

File:Humayun Azad (1947-2004).jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by 37.111.199.115 with the reason "It is an unnecessary file redirect" FASTILY 22:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. It's fruitless to try to delete redirects like this one because AnomieBOT automatically creates them "because titles with en-dashes are hard to type." If you don't have access to an en-dash, this is the closest approximation you can get to the actual title. -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Definitely useful for users (like myself) who do not have an en dash on the keyboard. ComplexRational (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. I doubt the usefulness of these redirects in File: namespace—does anyone type file names instead of copy-and-pasting them?—but that would require a wider community discussion about changing AnomieBOT's activity. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Redirects from titles replacing dashes with hyphens are common and useful. Many keyboards, including the one I am using to type this, do not have dashes. Removing these redirects would require a far wider discussion than individual RFD nominations anyway. Geolodus (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep per Tavix. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:56, 20 October 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:Christianitywikiproject[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Relevant xkcd ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-standard and incorrectly capitalized redirects to a WikiProject template, which are unneeded, unused (no significant incoming links, and 5 combined pageviews in 2018), and contain no useful page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: See similar precedents in recent discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...FWIW, I saw all of them when they were being discussed. Some I had no opinion on since their names were a bit unlikely and unclear, and thus did not participate in their discussions. The ones I stated "keep" on ... though they ended up being deleted ... I saw to be harmless and unambiguous. My latter thought applies to these nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. I saw that you had participated in some of the discussions and, regardless of our difference of opinion on these types of redirects, appreciate your clearly considered comments. I was linking to past discussions mostly to provide context for others (and further support my nomination). For full disclosure, I am sure that, were I to look back further, I would find of mix of discussion outcomes. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Used or not, the redirects are not ambiguous, in the "Template:" namespace (and thus do not have to have correct capitalization), and are helpful/plausible search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943, these are unambiguous and harmless. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...But how are they useful? Surely, harmfulness/harmlessness must be considered alongside usefulness/uselessness? I think I have demonstrated that the nominated redirects, regardless of their potential for use, are not being used. The descriptors "unambiguous" and "harmless" could just as easily apply to Template:Christwikiproject, Template:Chrwikiproject, Template:ChristianWproject, Template:ChristProject, Template:ChristWikiPro, and a thousand other variations. Would you suggest they all be created and/or kept if someone created them? -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are alternative capitalizations of the former CamelCase template name. Potentially useful and unambiguous. Unused does not mean useless; the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution has never been the subject of a Supreme Court case in the 200 years it has existed, but that doesn't make it useless. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:29, 21 October 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:ChristianityWikiProject/sandbox[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-standard redirects to subpages of a WikiProject template, which are unneeded and unused (no significant incoming links, and 8 combined pageviews in 2018). The move history is preserved in the page history of the target pages. This nomination seeks to implement the delete outcome at this recent discussion. (Courtesy pining the participants in the previous discussion: User:BDD, User:Magioladitis, User:PC78, User:Soumya-8974, User:Steel1943) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I totally agree. Let's keep up the cleaning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 19 October 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.

Uttarakhand Cricket Association[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 27#Uttarakhand Cricket Association

Ground biscuit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "ground biscuit" does not appear on the target page. Tea2min (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although the picture shows ground biscuit, the biscuit is not sold ground, ergo the redirect is confusing rather than helpful. Zerach (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If I remember correctly, there was a page named "Ground biscuit" which I moved to "Plazma biscuits" (with the intention to rename the article). Analyzing the former name from new perspective, it was probably a bad translation of word "Plazma" from Serbian to English, as users (in this case that would be @User:VS6507) whose mother tongue language is not English, tend sometimes to translate everything to English, even brand names..--AirWolf talk 05:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and restore the original article's content. The name was changed without prior consultation by the user AirWolf whose mother-tongue is Serbian. The main topic of the article is ground biscuit/biscuit powder and not the Bambi's brand Plazma biscuit. Vs6507 18:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @VS6507: Please do some research before putting such non-sense in a discussion. On the following link - [1], you would find the content of then-"Ground biscuit" article before I moved it to "Plazma biscuit". And here is the content of article after your initial edits - [2], clearly referring to Plazma biscuit and not certain type (i.e. "ground" biscuits) of biscuits in general.--AirWolf talk 20:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ground biscuit (/ˈɡɹaʊnd bɪskɨt/) is a form of biscuit, usually baked, flour-based food products, that is specially processed by grinding.

    Ground biscuits are usually combined with milk or very thin pancakes, called crepes. It is a common form of sweet, particularly well known in states of former Yugoslavia and in Serbia, and it is often exported to other countries, or sold by some web selling service,[1] like Amazon.[2] It is also usually used by confectioners as a supplement for their meals. It can be also used as an ingredient of many sweets, like i.e. ice cream cake.[3] It can be eaten daily.

    Well known brand of ground biscuits is Bambi's Lane Ground Biscuits (in Serbian mleveni plazma keks), that doesn't contain trans fat.

    This was the original content of the intro section of the article. I don't see anything questionable here, as I was discussing the main topic, and mentioning our Plazma keks as an example. Vs6507 20:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert 2018 move. My, what a mess. So, as far as I can see, here's what happened.
    1. VS6507 created the article in 2014 as a generic food article, but which included a section about a specific brand. The brand-specific stuff was soon removed by Yoninah.
    2. In 2018, AirWolf renamed the article and changed the content to cover the brand.
    3. Today, VS6507 unilaterally renamed the article to Biscuit powder. I have for now requested a reversion of this move. It can be moved to Ground biscuit or whatever appropriate title for the generic foodstuff, but please wait for consensus to be formed. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As evidenced from the specific brand's English-language packaging,[3] "ground biscuit" is the name used for the food type. The brand is called Plazma, or Lane in English. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not knowing about this discussion, I retargeted Plazma biscuit to Bambi a.d., its producer and brand owner. While the brand is probably notable, we do not have a proper article about it, (this is largely unsalvageable) ; note that those are normal biscuits "by default" (see http://plazma.rs/ ) and ground form is just a minor variant.
    That being said, "ground biscuit" is obviously a synonym for biscuit powder so they should redirect to one another. The current article is an underwhelming substub, and I'm not sure if there's encyclopedic value in the topic ("biscuit powder" is obviously what you get when you grind a biscuit). No such user (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a complete mess, relisting to sort this out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and sort things out on the article talk page. RfD isn't the proper venue for this. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 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.

DX50[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Paul_012 (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: DivX has used the DX50 FourCC since version 5.0. I have re-added DX50 with a reference to FourCC.org. RJ4 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A simple search via Google indicates that it is an unlikely search term for DivX. There is actually something called DX50. In the light of this fact, it is best to delete this redirect and let the reader know we do not have an article on this topic. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the source-supported reference added by User:RJ4. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 17:46, 19 October 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.

Valerie Broussard[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American singer who probably fails NN at present. 4 different articles mention her as performer and/or songwriter (Galantis discography, Think About You (Kygo song), Kygo discography and New Blood (Yellow Claw album). Impossible to decide which should be target, redirect no benefit to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She's best known for being the featured artist on Kygo's song "Think About You" considering that charted quite widely, so I've repointed it there. The artist's name is a valid search term, and this is like nominating a song title redirect for deletion just because it points to its parent album when the title is mentioned on multiple articles. It's certainly not "impossible to decide". It's not that deep. Ss112 20:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When a title could point to multiple targets, it is better to let the reader decide through Search. I disagree with the comparison to a song and its parent album. In that scenario, the song is a sub-topic of the album. In this one, a performer's name is being redirected to just one of their performances, even though she is mentioned in relation to multiple performances. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: multiple targets, dab not appropriate. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:53, 19 October 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.

What Don't You Understand About Comedy? (Weeds episode)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article or even at the parent article. Couldn't find any mention of this online either. Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible, unverified redirect that is unused (no significant incoming links, 3 pageviews in 2018) and has no useful page history. If a handful of unreliable Google search results are to be trusted, "What Don't You Undestand About Comedy?" (it's unclear if "?" was part of the title) was the pre-air title of the season 3 episode "A Pool and His Money". The combination of the unverified provenance, the unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation, and the observable lack of use makes deletion the best option. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:32, 19 October 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.

MILF (Weeds episode)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect episode title which is MILF Money. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as a redirect that is confusing, unused (no significant incoming links, 5 pageviews in 2018), and contains no useful page history (the move is also recorded in the page history of MILF Money). -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:59, 19 October 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 Plant (Weeds episode)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the episode title, which is A.K.A. The Plant. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom, as a redirect that is confusing, virtually unused (no significant incoming links, ~8 pageviews per year), and contains no useful page history (the move is also recorded in the page history of A.K.A. The Plant). This is, however, a marginally more plausible search term than the "MILF" one above, because the use of "A.K.A." in the actual title may confuse people. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RKEEP 2. Likely search term; it's not strange that a 13 year old TV episode isn't a leader in annual page views. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:34, 21 October 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.

If You Work for a Living, Then Why Do You Kill Yourself Working[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. I should note that the proper name, If You Work for a Living, Then Why Do You Kill Yourself Working?, was changed to point to Weeds (season 4)#ep50. As such, these two are now in disagreement. I closed this as consensus to keep, but will be changing the target to point the more detailed entry on my own. . ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title of the episode which has a question mark at the end (If You Work for a Living, Then Why Do You Kill Yourself Working?). Since searching for one will anyways bring the other, it is best to delete this so it won't be incorrectly used. Netflix, IMDB, AV Club. Gonnym (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as possible search term. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any search term is possible, but that doesn't mean we should have redirects from all of them. As pointed out by the nom, anyone searching for the 60+ characters of this title will see the correct one, too. The negative risk of mislinking outweighs any minute theoretical benefits in this case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "Any search term is possible, but that doesn't mean we should have redirects from all of them" -- of course not, but in this case the only difference is a punctuation mark. I'm not sure what "risk" is involved in mislinking to a redirect, nor am I understanding how this redirect is a problem, but I'll let others decide the fate of the page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to you, too! Sorry if my statement came across harshly—that wasn't my intent, though in retrospect I can see that it was a straw man and, as such, unnecessary. I was referring to the risk of linking, within article text, to the (incorrect) version of the episode title without the punctuation mark. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excluding a question mark is definitely a plausible search term. Depending how one searches, searching for one will not always find the other. Keeping this redirect in place preserves this because we want searchers to find the correct location, which is the current target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short of typing a full URL, what search method would find just this redirect and not the other? -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any search method that requires an exact match or is not optimized enough. The redirect is useful for redirecting anyone who believes the title to not have a question mark, and guarantees that a searcher is taken to the correct location, instead of hoping they are using a search method that is "good enough". -- Tavix (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RKEEP 2. Aids accidental linking; if episode is mentioned in running prose editors may not want to have a question mark in the middle of a sentence. Likely search term per above. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should be avoiding, not aiding, accidental links to the incorrect titles of creative works. The question mark is part of the work's title, and the specific scenario you describe (omitting the question mark in article prose) directly contravenes MOS:TITLEPUNCT—see the offered example, O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a 2000 comedic film, not O Brother, Where Art Thou is a 2000 comedic film. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to Weeds (season 4)#ep50, as an avoided double redirect to If You Work for a Living, Then Why Do You Kill Yourself Working?. Be sure to properly tag with {{r avoided double redirect}}. Tag with {{r from incorrect name}} if deemed necessary. We don't want to encourage incorrect usage, but we don't want to leave broken links either. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 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.

Mia's Index of Anthro Stories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 27#Mia's Index of Anthro Stories

List of Dexter's Laboratory characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the delete outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dexter's Laboratory characters (2nd nomination), there is no list of Dexter's Laboratory characters anywhere on Wikipedia. I could consider an RFC or DRV to overturn this issue, but at this time it's just a misleading redirect, so a deletion is for the best. If this is deleted, I'd seriously recommend WP:SALT. ミラP 04:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, and salt if recreated again without a target list being added. If there is no list of characters on Wikipedia, nobody needs a redirect falsely telling them that there is one. Geolodus (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per abpve; why do cartoons get such listcruft? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but oppose salt for now. Per what TenPoundHammer said, it's listcruft. Target article got deleted, and if it wasn't for it being retargeted, I would've tagged for speedy deletion. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 11:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree with above users, but salt seems like overkill in this case. Paper Luigi T • C 02:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 20 October 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.

Freezer-duty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else in Wikipedia, I can't find any sources about it (some kind of police slang?), and most uses in Google Books are either partial matches for "freezer duty cycle" or are about retail/restaurant job duties involving freezers. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 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.

Meridia Health Services[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a significant event in the transition of the Cleveland Clinic from a single hospital to a regional network. I just noticed that the merger is mentioned at History of Cleveland Clinic (though not by name), so that's another potential target. - Eureka Lott 20:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and UnitedStatesian. --Doug Mehus (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 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.

Space cruiser[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 27#Space cruiser

Nightcrawl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 27#Nightcrawl

Ngân Sơn (town)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 27#Ngân Sơn (town)

Fox Mountain Country Fest[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dead end because I was unable to find information about this on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 19 October 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.

Hawaii 50[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Hawaii Five-O. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I see the use in Hawaii 5 0, this is less likely. It's not like Five-0, more like fifty. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete or retarget. Reads as "Hawaii fifty" so potential ambiguity with Hawaii Route 50. Also not sure why the current target is the 2010 series and not the Hawaii Five-O dab page. PC78 (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PC78 Not sure either. It was originally targeted to Hawaii Five-0 (a redirect to the dab page) before a bot fixed it to be the 2010 series back in 2017. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 11:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page Hawaii Five-O and add a hatnote for Hawaii Route 50. Both a Google Search and page information stats suggest that the TV series is the primary topic, but there is no reason to favor the 2010 series, so the dab page is the best target. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per ComplexRational. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:39, 21 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_19&oldid=1145921988"