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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. — JJMC89 (T·C)02:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This historic redirect should be deleted as the two topics of thesport of athletics andtrack and field are now separate, thus this redirect is creating problematic links.SFB21:45, 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep.(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]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep.MBisanztalk03:57, 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 withinGIMP version history,however because they are all{{R from file metadata link}} shouldn't we be sending them toGIMP instead? This way when you click on the link it redirects you to information on the general software being used, andnot the specific version.
Pretty much all the remaining redirectshere 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 subsequentlyretargeted toGIMP. –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 onGIMP 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]
- 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Jugoslawia
Pocket Aces (Company)
[edit]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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. — 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. — 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. — 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 eitherCoterminous U.S. orCoterminous 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]
- 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.
