Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmadrid (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 14 July 2023 (→Writ of error: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2023.

Mancession

Mentioned in the target article and has a reference, but not in a way that adequately defines the term and thus may be WP:NEO. Per the target article, the best target for this redirect may be Great Recession (the target of redirect 2008–2012 global recession); however, this redirect is not currently mentioned in Great Recession. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Transitional work" and "Transitional job(s)"

Neither of these redirects' target articles contain the redirects' phrases or the word "transitional". Both target articles each include one instance of the word "transitions", but not necessarily in reference to "jobs" or "work". I've bundled these together due to their edit histories; about 15 years ago, these all essentially targeted the same place, but over time, editors and bots found a way to both have these redirects target different targets and leave editors scratching their heads trying to figure out how or why these terms would redirect readers to either of the current target articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Transitional work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 USSC ethics disclosures

This is an unlikely and misleading search term. The reference discussing "disclosures" at the target is from 2022, not 2023, so the specificity of the year makes this problematic and unhelpful. The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and does not include information about ethical disclosures made in 2023 as this redirect would imply. The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas, which are described in more detail at Clarence Thomas#Nondisclosure of gifts, real estate sale, and wife's income. Finally, USSC is not a common initialism for the target, at least not as prevalent as SCOTUS. All of this combined makes this unlikely to be useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USSC isn't as common as SCOTUS but that doesn't mean its use can't be anticipated. I agree with the rest of your points. Largoplazo (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's certainly a valid initialism, but unlike SCOTUS, USSC is ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a different USCC with ethics disclosures in 2023? You haven't nominated USSC for deletion but 2023 USSC ethics disclosures. – Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • The word revelations is 7th in the target section. The reference is not from 2022 but 2023 https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing
  • The section is about revelations of failures to disclose details from prior years that came to light more recently, and The only content related to 2023 were the revelations about Clarence Thomas You're making my case for me.
  • The next section includes mounting ethics scandals cited by https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172083875/chief-justice-roberts-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel (including trips on yachts and private jets and disclose the sale of properties).
Invasive Spices (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of BL drama

"BL" is ambiguous anyway, but the current date-limited target is inappropriate. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article (before redirect) was merged into its current target, and redirect should be retained for attribution history for authorship of merged content. Schazjmd (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on List of BL drama
Weak delete on List of BL dramas
"BL" is too ambiguous. If consensus is keep, I then suggest refine to just the whole article. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 23:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a clearer consensus, and to close an old log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either delete or restore and send to AfD(?). While I'd lean towards BL being sufficiently disambiguated by 'drama' the target essentially does not list what most people would think of as Boys' Love. For example, calling Law & Order or Borgia BL is easily a surprise. The date range is way too specific for this redirect as well. As for the original list, it was largely specific to Thailand and wasn't exactly well sourced? Pretty sure the merge decision was flawed when it went to AfD. Moreover, the content from that list isn't at the target anymore and one entry is at the 2016-2019 date range. Not sure what the best procedure for this would be, either delete or restore and send to AfD. ― Synpath 17:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the singular as a page move redirect from a misspelling. Move without redirect the plural to some valid title like List of dramatic TV series with LGBT characters: 2010–2015. Jay 💬 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javanese Dragon

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. For the history of the redirect, it looks like this redirect was a stub article for about a day in 2012 prior to being merged (per this edit) into the target article; however, it does not look like there's anything in the target article that resembles what was in this redirect formerly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest retargeting to Mythology of Indonesia. This article seems to have had useful content at the time of its creation, and the only justification I can see for its merging into "dragon" so soon after that is that it was quite short and in need of improvement. But since the subject isn't covered there, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-created by someone with more expertise in the subject, it might be best to target it to an appropriate alternative. I briefly looked for more specific articles having to do with Javanese religion/mythology, but didn't see anything involving dragons, although Mythology of Indonesia does mention dragons. Or it could be recreated with its former text, but that looks to be in need of considerable improvement, and the subject is far enough beyond my scope of knowledge that I'm not confident I could make it acceptable. But of course, articles don't need to be perfect, and there is no deadline for improving them. So restoring the pre-merger version would be my second choice. P Aculeius (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had a look into this, I think the reason it's hard to find much discussion of this is that it there is actually no such thing. I oppose the suggested target of Mythology of Indonesia since there is no discussion of dragons in Javanese mythology specifically, so someone searching this would not find anything useful. I am neutral between retargeting to Nāga#Indonesia (see the photos there for the dragon-like non-dragons; this appears to be what the original article was about) or restoring the original article. A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-headed dragon

Surprisingly enough, these concepts are not defined in the target article which identifies these concepts specifically. There are a few examples of multiple-headed dragons mentioned in the target article, in addition to one image of a multiple headed dragon being present in the target article, but I don't think that is enough to warrant these redirects targeting this page since there concepts are not specifically defined. In addition, there is an article with a subject that is probably the most related to these concepts, Polycephaly, but I did not see an appropriate place to retarget these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep where they are. These are plausible search terms, and while the target article may not discuss the concept specifically, readers who are redirected there might be expected to find the mentions that are there, and realize that there is no independent content under those titles as a result of the redirects. That may prompt editors to research the topic and write about it, either under "dragon" or under one of the redirects, which would be a good thing. I don't see any benefit to simply deleting the redirects. Conceivably readers might be looking for information on dragons in heraldry, or in fantastic literature (the Dungeons & Dragons version of Tiamat comes to mind), but "dragon" is probably the safest target unless someone wants to create an article under one of these titles. I don't think readers are as likely to be looking for polycephaly; that doesn't look like a good alternative to the present target or simply building an article out of one of the redirects. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and potentially WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10. If we started with the assumption that we must have a redirect for everything someone can plausibly search then yes, the current target is best. However that is not the case. There is very little about multiheaded dragons specifically in Dragon, and the existence of these redirects creates the false impression that there is such specific discussion. Anyone searching this will certainly still find dragon, and may well be searching this after having already read dragon. A7V2 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Both redirects get a handful of clicks every month by pageview and Dragon has the broadest coverage for multi-headed dragons (14 by my count), though no two-headed ones. When I search "multi-headed dragon" the Dragon article doesn't top the list though it should, and the redirect will help that. However, I'm not familiar enough with how the Wikipedia search works to know if the reason the Dragon article isn't at the top of the list is because the redirect exists. ― Synpath 00:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Sea-Centipede & Cetacean Centipede

Neither of these redirects are mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirects and the target articles subject unclear. In addition, both of these redirects formerly targeted Many-finned sea serpent, which was deleted per AFD in 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willowdale,Pictou, Nova Scotia

Unlikely, WP:COSTLY redirect due to the lack of a space after a comma in the title ... which is odd due to the inclusion of a space after a comma elsewhere in the title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M,egabyte

Unlikely misspelling/variation due to the odd placement of a comma. For reference, similar titles such as T,errabyte and K,ilobyte do not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion, The Witch,and The Wardrobe

Unlikely, WP:COSTLY redirect due to the lack of a space after a comma in the title ... which is odd due to the inclusion of a space after a comma elsewhere in the title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social surplus

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus,Supply and demand

Title missing a space that's filled with WP:XY issues Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:POPCORN

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was RfD'd in 2019 but without a clear reason for deletion (arguably should have been speedily kept). I think it's worth revisiting that discussion with a proper rationale given.

The mentality of treating AN/I as theater is a very unhealthy one, and this redirect encourages that. AN/I is a place where we block and ban users, address serious harassment and abuse, and, ideally, try to deescalate tensions between good-faith users in disagreements. None of those are "popcorn"-worthy, and that people see them as such is frankly quite troubling, and contributes to the incessant drumbeat of useless driveby comments by people who see one of our most serious noticeboards as a spectacle.

That's not to say there's no place for comedy at or about AN/I. That's why I'm not RfDing WP:HAPPYPLACE. But the purpose of this redirect is not just levity, but trivialization. That is not something we should encourage. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 30 § Wikipedia:You can see Hell from here for a case of a similar redirect (to RfA) being deleted as promoting an unhealthy mentality. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about the redirects WP:Dramaboard, WP:CESSPIT, or WP:Great Dismal Swamp? I think all three of these also fall under redirects that "[treat] AN/I as theater". I'm not trying to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just curious about your opinion. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like Tamzin's rationale here, but a corollary to "if you build it, they will come" is "if you have a process page on Wikipedia, someone will make a useless and/or snarky WP: link to it". I'd be sure that deleting this one, for the best reasons in the world, will fail to have any effect... not least because we can be sure that it will be recreated very soon by someone else wanting to make a point or a joke or a pointy-joke. — Trey Maturin™ 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writ of error

This originally targeted Coram nobis, but was retargeted by Pmadrid in 2009 (and again in 2012 after a revert by U193581) on the basis that (per Talk:Writ of error). The writ of error and the writ of error coram nobis are two completely different writs. The former is the writ that was historically issued for an appeal in cases at common law, which is the sense used in every article linked here. I haven't checked what these articles looked like back then, but at least currently, the writ of error is not mentioned once at Appeal, whereas it gets a subsection at Coram nobis to provide context for the related concept of the writ of error coram nobis. While this is arguably a strange place to have our most in-depth discussion of the writ of error, it is nonetheless the most in-depth, thus I suggest we retarget to Coram nobis#Writ of error (i.e. revert but refine) and tag as {{r with possibilities}}. (One such possibility would be to take that subsection, spin it into its own article, and reduce that background info at Coram nobis to a sentence or two.) Second choice would be to retarget to Writ#Other writs, where it gets a one-sentence mention. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 20:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that someone is finally tackling the challenge of identifying and cleaning up this mess. Like most attorneys with appellate experience, I have always thought that it was odd that "writ of error" redirects to "appeal" when writs and appeals are fundamentally different. I concur with your second to last proposal to create a separate article on "writ of error" as the most logically coherent solution. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object too strongly to a retarget to Coram nobis#writ of error. That section did not exist when I made the redirect back in the day. My concern at the time was that there were many Wikipedia articles on old cases before the Supreme Court of the United States that correctly identified that they reached the court on a writ of error, not an appeal, because they were cases at law and not cases at equity or admiralty. But this redirect ended up sending readers to an article not on appeals but on a different procedure with a different purpose. Some examples where this is still the case: United States v. Moore, Evans v. Eaton (1818).
Until the unification of equity and law practice, the writ of error and the appeal were technically different procedures with the same end: asking a higher court to review the judgment of a lower court. On the purpose of the writ of error being an appeal of an action at law, see William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, bk. 3, ch. 25. As further proof that the writ of error was in fact a thing and was in use in the United States, it's all over the Judiciary Act of 1789 and distinguished as the remedy to review judgments in actions at law versus suits in equity or admiralty (see particular §§ 21–25, 1 Stat. 83-87).
I grant that appeals are nowadays, for the most part, different from writs, the exception being certiorari. As long as readers get to an explanation of what the writ of error was, and that it was what we call an appeal today, then there shouldn't be a problem. Alternatives could be expansion on the history of appeal in the Appeal article, though because appeal also covers common law and European civil law, that might not be the right place for it. Perhaps a separate writ of error article should be attempted at some time. Pmadrid (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Wiretap

not used at target or on enwiki. Does not seem to be a term in use. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic ogre

The word "aquatic" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the nominated redirect unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons)

The term "Dungeons & Dragons" is mentioned nowhere in the target article, leaving readers unable to find the information they are attempting to locate wants her to for these redirects. Also, the target section no longer exists. (However, Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) was formerly an article that was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogre (Dungeons & Dragons) in 2020. At this point though, it does not seem that the current state of the target article does not include any information which may have formerly been in this article to warrant the redirects targeting the target article.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Laureate

Could also refer to List of municipal poets laureate in California or Nobel Prize laureates from California. I don't think disambiguation is worth it or makes sense to attempt, so delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ass-whuppin'

An ass-whooping is not the same thing as a spanking, nor are these useful redirects. A batch of related redirects were created recently by the same user so I'm bundling them together. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Adding Whooping. -- QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 16:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation City

Not mentioned in the target article, and apparently not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target - A quick google search shows that it is

    An early 1987 cyberpunk adventure game created by Jiro Ishii, who later went on to direct 428: Shibuya Scramble in 2008 and Time Travelers in 2012.

    "Imitation City (game)". Giant Bomb. Retrieved June 25, 2023. So it is verifiable that it exists, but is not in the target. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools:     See reply to Steel1943 below. (talk, contribs) 15:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, it would be inappropriate to add the subject of the redirect to the target since this subject is a game that may be of the target genre, but the subject of this redirect is not wholly represented of the target subject. This seems like a WP:REDLINK situation, considering that adding the subject of this redirect to the target is like having a notable actor's entire description in the article Actor without there being an article for the notable actor, which does not make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then retarget and add to List of graphic adventure games. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 00:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding it there may be okay, but probably not retargeting the redirect there. As it stands, the list of incoming redirects towards List of graphic adventure games includes no such related redirects that are name(s) of a game. It may be preferable to delete this redirect per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vitaium (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Chemistry

This doesn't make sense that way. Hildeoc (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most commented youtube video

Per WP:R#DELETE, #5. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's explained at the target though? J947 † edits 11:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this is mentioned at the target, it doesn't seem to still be the most commented YouTube video (it's actually now deleted; the source is from 2007...). A quick google search brings up [5] as the current most-commented video (though I took it from wikitubia, so maybe not the most reliable source); that factoid is also mentioned at Amir Tataloo, though unsourced, but that's probably the best target if/when it's sourced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be deleted since it likely won't have a long term stable target? ― Synpath 00:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this redirect is both currently incorrect and requires regular maintenance (retargeting) to be correct ... and even then, there's no guarantee there will be a place representing the "new subject" which this redirect refers. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbers

Appears to be a nickname for Marco Gabbiadini, but it's not mentioned in the article. Gabber is uncountable, but the subculture does seem to use "Gabbers" to refer to themselves, so it's probably the best target? Gabber (disambiguation) doesn't have any other countable targets, and I don't think the footballer would be what readers are searching for (he doesn't appear anywhere when searching "Gabbers" -wikipedia, or at least not until after the we have omitted some entries very similar message that pops up eventually). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gabber. Searching 'marco "gabbers" gabbiadini' in google shows several, mainly UK, sites that use that nickname, but the second you take out their last name from the search it serves only music related hits. Between that, pageviews and a bunch of sociologists interviewing/surveying Gabbers in 2000 ([6]) I'd say Gabber is the better target. Maybe the nickname could be added at the DAB page. ― Synpath 21:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's the ideal path forward (the DAB can definitely be converted into Gabber or Gabbers may refer to...). (I did notice the nickname was in at least slight use, but it took digging and I guess I forgot to mention it in the nom?) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsealy–Drinan

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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect (and the alternate Kinsealy-Drinan) should be altered to Kinsealy, which discusses this urban area, as opposed to Swords, Dublin, which does not. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There was discussion in the Swords article when I created the redirect in 2016, but it was deleted in 2017. I have added some back (with references and an anchor) and tweaked the DAB to link to the anchor. I believe the CSO came up with the name "Kinsealy-Drinan" between 1986 and 1991 because at the time Kinsealy Court was the main development in the northern part of the area; and I believe Kinsealy Court was so named because it was on the [Swords to] Kinsealy Road, not because it was in the parish or ED of Kinsaley. I did not add those claims to the article as I am unsure and have no references; nevertheless, I believe what is there now is enough to show the clear difference between the census towns of "Kinsaley" and "Kinsealy-Drinan", with Feltrim Hill separating them. jnestorius(talk) 16:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw After additions by jnestorius, the current redirect is now adequately explained on the Swords article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wikipedia:Code of conduct

I believe that all these should redirect to the same page. I think it's better for all of them to redirect to Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct. Just as a note, I made the last 2 (Wikipedia:CoC and Wikipedia:Coc) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 09:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The universal code of conduct applies as a minimum standard for all of the Wikimedia projects, while the English Wikipedia has its own policies on top of it. In addition, Wikipedia:Etiquette only offers one part of the English Wikipedia's code of conduct. Wikipedia:List of policies § Conduct, consistent with WP:CONDUCT, may be a better choice. Randi🦋TalkContribs 14:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-person adventure

Not mentioned in target article. In addition, First-person adventure was formerly an article (See here) that was merged via nominated for WP:AFD in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First-person adventure); per that revision, the subject of these redirects is "a hybrid genre of first person shooters and action-adventures", which neither represents the target section nor the target article at all. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 21:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further opinions on restoring?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 05:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tailspin (cocktail)

Not listed at target, or at List of cocktails, List of drinks or List of IBA official cocktails. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we soft redirect to wikibooks? Mdewman6 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see only Bengal potatoes at Category:Redirects to Wikibooks. Jay 💬 17:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wikibooks. I have no idea how attribution is handled with these old Wikibook transfers, but even if unnecessary and/or rarely done, it seems like a good idea to maintain this link with a soft redirect, at least until/unless there is content on enwiki about the topic. Second choice: soft delete per my original comments. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is a Wikibooks redirect feasible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 05:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why not, and I think this is a case where a Wikibooks redirect needs to be proven unfeasible; there clearly is precedent for having Wikibooks redirects, with the above-mentioned Bengal potatoes. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heterophylly

After closing the move at Shoot, I went to update the redirects, and stumbled across a couple that didn't make sense to me. I don't think Shoot (botany) is the best target for any of these; not sure about Heteroblasty (botany) either, and they may fall under WP:R#D10 as broad topics that need their own articles (especially Anisophylly, which is not mentioned at either target). At the very least, Heterophylly and Heterophyllous should be synced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's rather a mess. I think the first thing to do would be to create coverage for Anisophylly, which is entirely different from Heterophylly. I can't find any history that it was ever covered, am I missing something? Anisophylly, "not quite the same leaves", is when there are leaves of two different sizes on the same shoot, little leaves alternating with the big ones, as shown here [[7]] and we have it in at least one Commons photo here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anisophylly now has a minimal coverage on its own page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astro-Knights

It looks as if this one was created for a section which has since been deleted. Cannot see any mention of such a title. Delete? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_10&oldid=1165329442"