Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2019.

Athletics (track & field)[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This historic redirect should be deleted as the two topics of the sport of athletics and track and field are now separate, thus this redirect is creating problematic links. SFB 21:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Soumya-8974: WP:SALT should only be applied to pages that are repeatedly recreated. Do you see evidence of this happening with this redirect? -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! I'm still too busy to help out more but I at least wanted to make sure that loose end was tied. -- Tavix (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All mainspace links to these targets are now disambiguated. SFB 21:45, 21 September 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:Arth[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and since no proof has been provided on what else this could mean. That, and where is there a consensus-formed "standard wikiproject redirects convention"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and see the comment below by Ivanvector. And if anyone starts relying heavily on these template redirects, it makes sense for the template to have the same shortcut as the project. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:47, 17 September 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:AFRO[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It is listed as unused for years. It does not follow the standard wikiproject redirects convention. Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "standard wikiproject redirects convention" I mean redirects starting with WP... or Wikiproject... to WikiProject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless, and if anyone starts relying heavily on these template redirects, it makes sense for the template to have the same shortcut as the project. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:45, 17 September 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.

GIMP 2.10.6[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. MBisanz talk 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to check in on something because there is no policy about this as far as I know:
These three redirects go to a relevant section within GIMP version history, however because they are all {{R from file metadata link}} shouldn't we be sending them to GIMP instead? This way when you click on the link it redirects you to information on the general software being used, and not the specific version.
Pretty much all the remaining redirects here all target to the main article instead of the version history article.
I therefore propose that these three redirects to do so as well and be subsequently retargeted to GIMP. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a similar discussion recently where I wondered if we could change the way the file metadata is processed. I see your point, though humans using these search terms probably already know what GIMP is and are looking for more specific information. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Someone using these redirects (whether by searching or via file metadata) is most likely looking for information on these specific versions. If someone then wants more information on GIMP in general, it is a lot easier to "go wide" and find the general information on GIMP over the vice versa. Accordingly, I would also support retargeting the rest to their respective version sections. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Regardless of how linking in file metadata is set up, this type of redirect serves primarily readers and it will serve them best by taking them to the most relevant article. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:23, 16 September 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.

Jugoslawia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Jugoslawia

Pocket Aces (Company)[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 delete. R3 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to Pocket Aces which redirects to Glossary of poker terms. Obviously unintended result. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:26, 16 September 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.

LILLIPUTIAN HITCHER[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a particularly notable episode title, especially in all caps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:11, 17 September 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.

Heartfu(e)l[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this at target. Cannot find alternative target. FWIW, Creator is a blocked account with a history of redirect creations which have since been deleted. Richhoncho (talk) 13:15, 16 September 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.

Alfa Romeo 149[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion. Journalist generated name. No such car existed, it was an expected name of an expected successor. YBSOne (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Google searches: No results found for site:alfaromeo.it "alfa romeo 149". No results found for site:alfaromeo.com "alfa romeo 149". No results found for site:fiatgroup.com "alfa romeo 149". No results found for site:fiatspa.com "alfa romeo 149". YBSOne (talk) 10:10, 16 September 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.

Coterminuous U.S.[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Coterminous" is valid synonym of "conterminous" (used in the article's lead); however, "coterminuous" is not a word and, therefore, not useful for linking. On its own, both the misspelling "coterminuous" and the abbreviation "U.S." are plausible; however, when taken together, and considering that anyone who starts to type in the redirect title will see either Coterminous U.S. or Coterminous United States, the redirect becomes an implausible search term, too (only 7 pageviews in 2018). -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely typo, but consider adding "coterminus" as a valid alternative spelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Implausible typo. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:54, 17 September 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_September_16&oldid=918532716"