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]

• Athletics (track & field) → Track and field  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Athletics (track and field) → Track and field  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Delete and salt in the blizzard. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:49, 17 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]

• @Tavix: Thanks for nominating athletics (track and field) as well. I've cleaned up many links but there are still about 200 left. General advice for replacement of piped links is: anything piped to athletics --> sport of athletics, anything piped to track --> track and field, anything piped to athlete --> track and field athlete. Thanks! SFB 20:58, 18 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]

• Delete per nom and as vague as Running (track & field) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 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.

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]

• Template:Arth → Template:WikiProject Arthropods  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• 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.

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]

• Template:AFRO → Template:WikiProject African diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• What is the "standard wikiproject redirects convention"? The listed shortcut for the project is WP:AFRO, why should Template:AFRO not be a shortcut to its banner? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ivanvector and WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 28 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]

• 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.

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]

• GIMP 2.6.11 → GIMP version history#GIMP 2.6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GIMP 2.10 → GIMP version history#GIMP 2.10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GIMP 2.10.6 → GIMP version history#GIMP 2.10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Keep per @Tavix:. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to main. I am checking on how to merge the articles as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIMP version history. Once done, these redirects will land on the main article. robertsky (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. The redirects in their present state guide readers to the most specific information Wikipedia has to offer for the subjects of these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 25 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'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]

• Pocket Aces (Company) → Pocket Aces  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• LILLIPUTIAN HITCHER → List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes#ep13  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Heartfu(e)l → Ocean Eyes (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Delete per nom. Not mentioned as a track on this album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 18 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'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]

• Alfa Romeo 149 → Alfa Romeo Giulietta (940)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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'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]

• Coterminuous U.S. → Contiguous United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"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.