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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Algeria (wine) → Algerian wine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Egypt (wine) → Egyptian wine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Morocco (wine) → Moroccan wine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• South Africa (wine) → South African wine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Tunisia (wine) → Tunisian wine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading disambiguation: you'd expect Foo (wine) to be about something called Foo that is a type of wine, maybe a wine brand, or if all else fails - a grape cultivar. You wouldn't expect that to lead you to an article about wine in Foo. All these were created by a single user, presumably to help them with linking to the corresponding wine-by-country articles, so the redirects have incoming links that will need fixing. I'm currently only nominating a small pilot batch of these redirects, there'll be more to come if we agree on deletion. – Uanfala 11:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm assuming these aren't types or brands that go by the region name like Bordeaux (wine), like "I'll have the Tunisia". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as they are linked and getting hits (particularly South Africa (wine), with over 80 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination). The latter is probably related the former but it is not possible to know at present. No objection to orphaning and, iff the usage drops off, nominating again a few months down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these redirects were created by a single editor, apparently to help them with linking: it looks like they were using the Help:Pipe trick to quickly output the country name linking to the article about winemaking in that country. Most (if not all) of the traffic is coming from these links. And if there is any traffic coming from readers actually typing these as search terms, then – as I argue above – the redirects are misleading. – Uanfala 13:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't know where the traffic is coming from. As for being misleading I disagree, and a Google suggests that this form is sometimes used. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, is the form used? I didn't find anything. – Uanfala 13:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The search term I used was "Algeria (wine)" -Wikipedia (and similar for the other countries) and I found a handful of "Algeria wine" etc. but interspersed with plenty of "Alergia's wine", etc. as google refuses to do verbatim searches even when you explicitly ask for it. It was enough to make me believe that this is not implausible enough to say that all the traffic is coming from the links. If they are orphaned and a few months after that there is no traffic, then I'll support deletion, but I am not currently convinced that deletion would be harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • But none for the precise string including the parentheses, right? Fwiw, I'm only objecting to the Country (wine) type of redirects, I wouldn't mind the existence of Country wine, Country's wine or even Wine (Country). – Uanfala 21:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi protection → Protection  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia. KMF (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the redirect is not included in the target disambiguation page. I oppose retargeting to Wikipedia since that is obscure WP:NAVELGAZING in the article namespace, in addition to the concept of "semi-protection" not being exclusive to Wikipedia as it can be applied on essentially any Wikimedia project. Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd rather that we just get rid of this. As stated above, the concept of something being in 'semi-protection' is a general thing that exists among multiple Wiki-type projects and isn't exclusive to Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 retarget to IPhone X. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone 9 → IPhone  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retargeting to iPhone X, where iPhone 10 points to, or deleted altogether because there is no "iPhone 9", note that Windows 9 points to Windows 10. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, as ((R from incorrect name)). Logical target for readers who may want to learn about the iPhone released subsequent to the iPhone 8. feminist 14:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since we have no idea what the name/number of the next iPhone generation will be. As far as anyone knows, the next generation could be "9", then the next a numerical "10". Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom, as ((R from incorrect name)). As said above, "logical target for readers who may want to learn about the iPhone released subsequent to the iPhone 8." Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.