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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• États-Unis → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• États-Unis d'Amérique → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Etats-Unis → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Etats-Unis d'Amerique → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Etats-unis d'amerique → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED. These redirects are in French. In the previous discussion, there were claims that the United States has affinity to the French language. However, the country as a whole does not have French language affinity; that affinity, from my knowledge, is exclusive to Louisiana and possibly Florida. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the two previous discussions. Nothing has changed and I agree that the US has sufficient affinity with the French language for these redirects to be useful. feminist (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per French language in the United States. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:01, 19 December 2018 (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. Unopposed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Соединённые Штаты Америки → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target does not have affinity to the Russian language. (I originally was going to put all of foreign language redirects to United States together in one nomination. However, I then found discussions such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4#États-Unis d'Amérique and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 18#Verenigde State van Amerika, so instead I’m listing them each individually by language to the best of my ability.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• United+States → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• United+States+of+America → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search terms due to the use of pluses. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I created that, the Firefox/Chrome Omnibar enwp.org search extension added plus signs between separate words, much the same way that Google still does in its urls (but of course it edits them out when it searches Wikipedia). I haven't really used Firefox for years but I think they now have a built-in omnibar and that there's probably no need for this redirect but I haven't tested that myself. I'd be included to leave it just in case there's another search engine that still adds +'s between words. shrug :) Banaticus (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ComplexRational (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• United States of America (redirect) → United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The disambiguator "(redirect)" is unclear in what it refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It was used to test page views, see Talk:America (disambiguation)/Archive 4#criteria for resolution of "temporary no consensus" close. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's no longer linked to so there's no reason to keep it around. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2018 (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 retarget to List of straits. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear what this refers to due to the use of the word "The". (If WP:X1 was still active, this could be a candidate for it.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of straits. I'm a little surprised there isn't a Strait (disambiguation), but most, if not all, straits could be called "the strait". I first thought of the Taiwan Strait (cf. Cross-Strait relations). --BDD (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of straits per BDD. feminist (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2018 (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 as refined by Auric. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Scrith → Ringworld#Scrith  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Term does not appear in target article shoy (reactions) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does, at Ringworld#Concepts reused. I've changed the redirect accordingly.--Auric talk 18:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine target to Ringworld#Concepts reused per Auric --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 15 December 2018 (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) 02:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirection should be deleted, because Cerasuolo is not a grape, it is a village, a surname, or two different Italian DOC wines. Further reasoning is on the Talk:Cerasuolo (grape) page; closest thing in WP:RFD 3.1, reasons for deleting, is No. 5, "The redirect makes no sense" Jon (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're certainly right that there doesn't appear to be a grape by this name, that both of the wines called Cerasuolo use other grapes. That doesn't mean this couldn't be useful as an ((R from incorrect name)). A reader familiar with these wines that wants to know more about the grapes they're made with could plausibly search for something like this, and from there, could learn the truth. On the other hand, a reader familiar with these wines may well just go directly to the wines' articles. I think I could go either way here. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting point, would it be helpful to mention the grape varieties (Montepulciano, Nero d'Avola, and Frappato) in the Cerasuolo disambiguation page this leads to? I'm not super-committed to deleting this page but my point is just that it's not a grape, and I imagine searching for "Cerasuolo" will get you to where you'd probably want to go (articles about the wines, or possibly the town) if you thought it was a grape variety. Unrelatedly, in subsequent research I've found "Cerasuolo" is also an Italian word for the red precious coral, Corallium rubrum, used in jewellery since antiquity, but I'm not sure whether it is worth adding that to the English disambiguation page. — Jon (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not be helpful to list the grape varieties on the DAB page. It would be against MOS:DAB.

I like the idea of relabelling as ((R from incorrect name)). Redirects are cheap, and it's a plausible search term. Narky Blert (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to avoid redirects (or disambiguation-page listings) from other languages—see WP:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag ((R from incomplete disambiguation)) (or ((R from incorrect disambiguation)), if you wine prescriptivists would prefer). I think it's reasonable for someone to append "(grape)" to try to disambiguate a wine variety. Deryck C. 12:51, 20 December 2018 (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.