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 disambiguate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Control operator → Control flow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect (created by myself in 2009) is misleading. As noted by an inline comment by User:Pcap: "This is usually understood to be Matthias Felleisen's control operator introduced in M. Felleisen, D. Friedman, E. Kohlbecker and B. Duba, Reasoning with continuations, in: Proceedings of the 1st Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, 1986). It's not described in the article on control flow." Tea2min (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: Are control operator and control flow similar enough that someone searching for the former could still conceivably find something they're looking for at the target article? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A quick google suggests that "control operator" is a common job title for people who work in various control rooms (emergency services in particular) which seems to be covered (sort of at least) on the Operator (profession) page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate incoming links for this are a mix of computer science use of control operators (if/thens) and the profession as described above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate as proposed. feminist (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2018 (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 Floral design. Three weaks make... well, something, but lacking stronger input, Floral design seems to be the way to go ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Flower arrangement → Floral design  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Flower arrangements → Floristry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Flower arranging → Floristry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Floral Arrangement → Floristry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Floral arrangement → Floristry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As noted by Tryptofish at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 28#Floral foam these redirects should not point to different places. My initial preference a target is Floral design, but this is very weak. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What a mess. What is definitely clear is that they should all go to the same page, with a hatnote saying "x redirects to here, but for that other thing see..." I'd say that floral design is about more than just flower arrangements in a vase, so I'd target it to Floristry. (That said, I think that floral arrangement is enough of a topic on its own to justify a separate page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:WPHORT needs to answer this. From an outside perspective, I think it should go to floral design as the floristry is more general than just arranging. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tryptofish and AngusWOOF: If anyone were to write an article that would clearly be the best solution here but in the absence of that we do need to pick one target as we're all agreed the status quo is wrong. None of us seem to have very strong opinions and nothing has come from WP:WPHORT. I'll leave notes at talk:Floristry and talk:Floral design to see if that brings in more opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I don't feel particularly strongly, so I'll go along with Floral design as the target for all. If it looks like there complications, we can always put a hatnote pointing to the floristry page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2018 (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ¨list of emerging technology → List of emerging technologies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible misspelling. This punctuation does not belong here. � (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no evidence that this is a common mistake or otherwise commonly used. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:31, 10 July 2018 (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.