Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 9

December 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2019.

Template:Fns
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Template:Fns → Template:Reflist (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Fns&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This makes no sense. What does "Fns" mean how does it relate to a reference list? Nothing listed in FNS is logical. If the goal is to get fewer than 7 letters for a shortcut, try using Refs. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. The list of incoming redirects to Template:Reflist does not provide any hints to what "fns" means either. Steel1943  (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Template:FNS since it exists. My previous rationale to why the current target is unhelpful still applies. Steel1943  (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not doing my full due diligence, but a redirect to Template:FNS would be appropriate. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep - "Fns" is shorthand for "footnotes". People are trying to delete many of the redirects to reflist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That explanation of what "fns" means is obscure to a point where it really is not helpful, especially if there is no evidence that the confusion has existed in the past. Steel1943  (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not keep, the status quo is too confusing. I'm not bothered either way if it's retargeted or deleted, I don't think it will matter much. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and please just take the extra second to type four more characters. Reflist is widely used and recognized, and it wastes other editors' time when they have to stop and figure out why a reference section contains an unfamiliar template. I oppose retargeting to Template:FNS because: (1) the redirect was created only recently and not with this intention; (2) there is no organic editorial demand for Template:Fns to redirect to Template:FNS (for example, Template:Uss does not redirect to Template:USS); and (3) "FNS" is an acronym, and it would be confusing to see  or , instead of  , when editing an article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could it mean Footnotes? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The template's name obviously refers to footnotes, but it's apparently confusing, and the target is of such a nature that it would be counterproductive to have cryptic shortcuts for it (analogously to what was said in this related RfD). As for the option of retargeting to FNS, Black Falcon has explained well enough why it would not be helpful. – Uanfala (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm convinced by Black Falcon's arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as unhelpful. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Lists of Google Doodles
                        Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 25%23Lists of Google Doodles

2019 LendingTree Bowl
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 25%232019 LendingTree Bowl

Revolution 5 du nom
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . Restoration and AfD could proceed as regular editorial action. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Revolution 5 du nom → Dalida discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolution_5_du_nom&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Révolution 5° du nom → Dalida discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R%C3%A9volution_5%C2%B0_du_nom&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Ete 80 : Rio do Brasil → Dalida discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ete_80_:_Rio_do_Brasil&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Été 80 : Rio do Brasil → Dalida discography (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89t%C3%A9_80_:_Rio_do_Brasil&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete all as WP:RFD confusing, not at target, nor at any other target that I could find. "Rio do Brasil" is mentioned, but not with the "Été 80", and Rio do Brasil itself is red. 94.21.38.126 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Restore articles and propose deletion - Révolution 5° du nom (last version) and Été 80 : Rio do Brasil (last version) are former articles that were redirected (without discussion as far as I can tell). I was able to verify the existence of Été 80 (see here) but could not find anything for Révolution. While I agree with User:DalidaEditor's comment (in an edit summary) that the articles contained no evidence of notability, it does not help to redirect albums to an article that does not mention them and I am not comfortable with deleting articles via RfD. No content was merged, so there is no need to retain these pages for their history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Ete 80 as listed as a redirect. This is valid as an album redirect. The bold redirect to the discography was many months ago, not a recent redirect and then RFD. Keep Revolution but add section for posthumous compilations as mentioned in Chart history of Dalida  If not added to discography, redirect that to Chart history article where mentioned. Why Chart history is separate from discography, I have no idea.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kudos on finding the reference in Chart history of Dalida, but I disagree that any of these is a valid album redirect. The chart history mentions Révolution, not Révolution 5° du nom or Revolution 5 du nom. Similarly, Été 80 is a valid album redirect, but the nominated titles with arbitrary spacing before and after the colon appear to be made-up. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment as nom (new IP address). There are 57 redirects to here, the majority of which appear to be song or album titles, many of which were originally separate articles or redirects to them. (For example, was moved to  on 5 February as an article, then replaced with a redirect the following day.) I don't know what the rationale was for replacing the articles with redirects, but I agree with User:Black Falcon that RfD should not be used to subvert AfD. I didn't want to list them all at once, but the Rs that were  articles at some point are:
 * (a bit of an edit war in February)
 * (was at before April)
 * (The article at Le temps des fleurs is the title song of the album)
 * (I started to nominate this at RfD with the others, then changed my mind)
 * (a bit of an edit war in February)
 * (has been moved around also)
 * (I am going to nominate this at RfD separately)
 * (I started to nominate this at RfD with the others, then changed my mind)
 * (a bit of an edit war in February)
 * (has been moved around also)
 * (I am going to nominate this at RfD separately)
 * (I started to nominate this at RfD with the others, then changed my mind)
 * (a bit of an edit war in February)
 * (has been moved around also)
 * (I am going to nominate this at RfD separately)
 * (I started to nominate this at RfD with the others, then changed my mind)
 * (a bit of an edit war in February)
 * (has been moved around also)
 * (I am going to nominate this at RfD separately)
 * (a bit of an edit war in February)
 * (has been moved around also)
 * (I am going to nominate this at RfD separately)


 * Many of these are just track listings or also list performers, chart positions etc. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

Popeye (video game
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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) 16:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Popeye (video game → Popeye (video game) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popeye_(video_game&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Classic WP:RDAB issue due to missing paren at the right. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as an implausible error. Glades12 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RDAB. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Report (noise)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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) 16:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * <span id="Report (noise)">Report (noise) → Explosion (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Report_(noise)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * <span id="Report (fireworks)">Report (fireworks) → Explosion (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Report_(fireworks)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Definition of "report" was removed from the target article in this edit, and was unreferenced all along. Now the redirect is confusing as the target page says nothing about "report". — Smjg (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as not mentioned in target per MOS:DABMENTION. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment added, which points to the same target; it survived an RFD in 2015: Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 21. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:DICDEF, wikt:report sense 3. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Palazzo di Tiberio Crispo
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Tiberio Crispo. signed,Rosguill talk 00:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Palazzo di Tiberio Crispo → Palazzo Farnese (disambiguation) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palazzo_di_Tiberio_Crispo&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

None of the three articles on the DAB page mentions 'Crispo', nor do their Italian equivalents. it:Palazzo di Tiberio Crispo does not exist. Narky Blert (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Tiberio Crispo. That article says that this palace was built in Bolsena, though neither the English or Italian Wikipedia articles on the town mention it. From the Crispo article, I'm not sure it was ever finished, but this should give readers what little information we have. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support redirect to Tiberio Crispo (by nom). Narky Blert (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Aik Aur Sitam Hai
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 20%23Aik Aur Sitam Hai

Apni Apni Love Story
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 19%23Apni Apni Love Story

Newsweek Media Group
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Newsweek. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Newsweek Media Group → IBT Media (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newsweek_Media_Group&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Currently targets IBT Media as a R from move, but Newsweek has the name "Newsweek Media Group" in bolded lettering per MOS:BOLD. However, Newsweek Media Group doesn't redirect to Newsweek, so it probably shouldn't actually be bolded. However, the redirect is a bit of a WP:SURPRISE for those expecting to an article about Newsweek, and it likely needs to be redirected. I therefore ask; should it be? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I, as the creator of the redirect, was acting as on agent for an IP address and do not care about the fate of this redirect. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 01:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Newsweek as explained in the history sections. It had merged with IBT Media but then got split again. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Newsweek. The corporate ownership of Newsweek gets a bit complicated and IBT would have been right at one point but I agree it's not at this moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.