Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 98: Line 98:


No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Retarget''' to [[Portal:Current events/2003 January 2]]. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


====Jailarity====
====Jailarity====

Revision as of 16:09, 15 April 2024

April 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2024.

Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor

I would like to delete the redirect "Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor" so that I can move the current article, "Adelaide–Darwin railway line" to the name currently occupied by the redirect.

Rationale: There are 5 major rail corridors between Australia's capital cities (as in the map here). For 4 of them, the Wikipedia article uses the word "corridor" (example: Sydney–Brisbane rail corridor). Only the Adelaide–Darwin one uses "line". The action requested would unify the terminology of all five. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Bounds(novel)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space before the disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think I messed up here actually. Some of these might be eligible for WP:G6. Oh well... Nickps (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gobshite

For the first time I think at RfD... I'm at a complete and total loss of words. I have, no idea, about any of this history. But it's certainly wrong. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word gobshite refers to a person who talks shite (speaks nonsense or is a fool), not to verbosity or (necessarily) a verbose person. I would delete, or perhaps as an alternative retarget to Shite, which is a DAB pointing to Shit among other things. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was mainly looking at the... interesting history behind this title, and its past and former targets. 😅 Utopes (talk / cont) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to the wiktionary entry
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gobshite Okmrman (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eater(Novel)

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space before the disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate?

Despite the history of an article being at this title, this search term is very much implausible. Delete and salt so we can finally get rid of it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the term may be implausible for a de novo search, the article and its controversy is mentioned throughout the Internet, e.g., Reddit here. As I mentioned on my talk page: Those who come to the redirect for 'bad' reasons get the real article with its terse, more carefully curated content... just like those who follow an old link would. I'm struggling to think of a policy-based reason for deletion. I get that a lot of people have strong feelings about this... but I don't. We do not need to break redirects to Right Great Wrongs. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don’t see how it’s implausible, seeing as the article from which it is derived was quite popular. Also I'd say that the use of the phrase in other language Wikipedias and the usage of the phrase in the media, which was no doubt spurred by the existence of the former article, necessitates this redirect.
Slamforeman (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How else can we avoid Where is Where is Kate? Edwardx (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been known to stuff beans up my nose before. Don't make me do it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no salt), due to no mention, or discussion, or any indication on why this question [Where is Kate?] exists and targets the page. Saying "conspiracy theories arose" is not enough. If kept, (which should only be done if a mention gets added), probably keep the title protected, and/or restore the previous history, and/or keep talk page unredirected? If it's going to exist on Wikipedia, mind as well maintain the storied background for archival purposes, although I'm not super bothered either way re: its inclusion to page history. If the history is specifically G10 speedy deletable, then maybe keep the history deleted, but the fact that there were a good chunk of RSs and a lot of !keepers at the AfD makes it seem the history could at the very least be useful to be aware of, especially as none of the past AfDs are linked at the redirect's talk page or any indication of its past life at all, beyond the first edit summary (as I would have expected for an AfD-recreated redirect). Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfDs were mentioned at the talk page of the now-redirect, but have since been removed by Alalch_E., whom I've pinged to explain his reasoning which I don't feel strongly about one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the remark that the redirect's talk page is the wrong page for the Old XfD was a not fully though out / poorly phrased way to say that if it's useful to redirect the redirect's talk page, it doesn't have to be kept just because of the Old XfD template about AfDs which did not determine the fate of the redirect as a redirect anyway. I believed that it's useful to keep that talk page redirected because discussions about the subject matter that had been covered under the title of "Where is Kate?" belong at the target article's talk page where they can get proper visibility, and I believed that the redirect's talk page might attract forum-like commentary, etc. —Alalch E. 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirection of the talk page is not maintainable because the outcome of this RfD will need to be recorded on it, so I will self-revert. —Alalch E. 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention at target. TarnishedPathtalk 09:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Silly nomination, sorry.—Alalch E. 11:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obvious search term, the phrase is used in sources, and many on Wikipedia know about the deleted article. While the phrase is not verbatim at the target, the target exactly matches, but encyclopedicly, the topic that the phrase refers to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-starter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at what's in the Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. We serve knowledge to people who look for it using problematic terms too. We don't say to them "bad reader with bad thoughts, we will not serve you the article". No, we will serve him the article so he can get educated and so he can get to see how a topic is treated when it is treated encyclopedically. —Alalch E. 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Tierney

No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobold (Shannara)

No character called Kobold at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keating (Fair City)

No mention of a character called Dan Keating at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some further unique history. Unlike Jan 2, this has been to RfD before, and closed as no consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2003

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jailarity

No mention of this related word at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. I have to guess this has been unmentioned at the target for at least 15 years, maybe its entire redirect lifetime. Has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redirect was created on April 22, 2006-- and on that day, "Jailarity" was defined under "Farkisms and cliches". At this point in time, the section was a long list of examples of various "farkisms", instead of a few paragraphs discussing the concept of a "farkism" in general. The last revision to have this "list" version of the section was here, before it was stricken as unencyclopedic-- it would then be readded a couple of times and immediately re-removed, before this revision added the section that would be molded into what we have today.
"Jailarity", in summary, was defined in a section that was removed for being unencyclopedic and replaced with a section that is far more encyclopedic, but doesn't define or even mention this term. Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could go to list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ŽS series 711

When this redirect was created, it pointed to RA2 Multiple Unit, which is the model that ŽS series 711 (manufacturer's designation: DP-S) is derived from. An anonymous user later disputed the redirect, pointing out RA-2 and DP-S are two different series. User Malcolmxl5 then made the redirect point to ŽS series 812, which is absolute nonsense since ŽS 812 and ŽS 711 have nothing in common besides operating on same routes. As the English wiki does not have a page about ŽS series 711 or DP-S Multiple Unit, I propose this redirect be deleted. Upwinxp (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Abbott

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The name today (according to a quick Google search) is more closely associated with Helen Blenkinsop, for which we don't have an article. While Samuel Spewack also used the name as a pseudonym and would warrant a disambiguating hatnote should an article exist on the primary topic, redirecting as-is is more likely to confuse readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blenkinsop is a recent user of the name (there's also the author of The Bazique-player's Hand-book, and various others). If you are prepared to write an article for her, then great. If not, don't destroy a valid redirect on that basis. (There also some other A. A. Abbotts.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Also the founder of this town: Kalkaska, Michigan. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would this is better off as a set index? --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedians by article count

Cross namespace redirect that is primarily linked to old archives. Note that it links to WP:List of Wikipedians by article count, but is a rather self redirect. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 11:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oorum Unavum

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Page history didn't seem very useful either. DrowssapSMM 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if not notable, was an article for 7 years before being single-handedly blanked by an IP a couple months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Trotskij

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia Province, Ottoman Empire

The Principality of Moldavia was never a "province" of the Ottoman Empire. It was never a part of the empire. It always remained a separate country with its own laws and administration under vassalage. These redirects are inaccurate and misleading. Also the "Bogdan/Bogdania/Boğdan" redirects are made up original research. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moldavia Province and Boğdan Province Referred to as such in several books (on "Moldavia," see [1], [2], [3], etc.) (on "Boğdan," see [4] and [5]). Cannot find references for the others, so delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects. Moldavia (known in Turkish as Boğdan) was never a formal part of the Ottoman Empire, much less something organized into a province. If anything some parts of Moldavia, fractions, were formally annexed and organized into distinct sanjaks ("provinces") that did not even border each other [6] [7], adding a layer of ambiguity to this issue. That sources with a wide general scope have chosen to use a common word to describe a detail that was clearly not given much attention do not change Moldavia's status in the past. Professional academic sources on the history of Romania will never refer to Moldavia as a "province". Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the inaccuracy, the redirects can be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. As it stands, there are indeed sources which refer to this area as a "province" of the Ottoman Empire, so the redirects are plausible search terms. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea (I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects) seems to come up fairly often. The telephone game by which we teach editors how Wikipedia works is not good at this kind of subject. So, because a lot of editors don't know, let me say that the point of a redirect is not to be accurate information, but to take readers to accurate information. An incorrect name can make a perfectly fine redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [8], [9], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

    The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
    The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
    The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

    This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:→

Ambiguous with Help:Edit summaries § Section editing. In fact, since "→" is not on most keyboards, copying it from an edit summary should be one of the most likely ways it is being searched. Also, WP:← redirects to H:AES which causes the two redirects to be inconsistent with each other. I suggest we dabify. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio

Delete as inaccurate and implausible. The abortion was performed in Indiana, not Ohio. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677: Why? WP:CHEAP doesn't explain why this redirect should be kept, it explains the general state of redirects. That's why you'll rarely see others cite it at RfD, it doesn't say anything in particular. Instead, it'd be more helpful to explain why you created it and why it may be a useful redirect, despite being inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Some people do not know that the abortion was performed in Indiana. Additionally, the redirect is not blocking any other article from being created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also see this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_5#10-year-old_Ohio_rape_victim_required_to_cross_state_lines_to_obtain_abortion Okmrman (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching this term is entirely plausible, as the title lends itself to potential confusion by mentioning both Ohio and Indiana. TNstingray (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is fine. Someone searching for this term will find out the facts of the case. BD2412 T 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a search engine, redirects should not be accommodating inaccurate keywords cobbled together into a never-before-seen title. As the abortion was not performed in Ohio, this cannot be an alternative name for the subject. Typing this into the search bar is far more insightful than maintaining this as a redirect, as readers will see the correct title and realize "Ah, it was the Indiana abortion case; the abortion was not performed in Ohio". This redirect currently causes confusion and presents a faulty equalization that a Ohio-abortion case = Indiana-abortion case, as there's no mention of a "Ohio-abortion misconception" or anything that would imply such a misconception. The redirect in question does not appear written at the target page (as it's untrue), nor does it appear anywhere on Wikipedia (as it's untrue). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects don't have to be mentioned in the article; there is no requirement for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that being mentioned is a requirement. Thousands don't, probably. But not being mentioned, heck, not even ever alluded to, absolutely demolishes any of the little motivation for keeping misleading information in the form of a redirect void-of-context. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible – though apparently not popular – search term, because not everyone is going to remember where the abortion physically happened. It sounds like the concern is that some editors parse the title as meaning that Ohio was the location of the abortion, rather than the (usual) location of the child – i.e., that "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio" is equal to "2022 abortion performed in Ohio on a 10-year-old" and is factually inaccurate, but "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old from Ohio" would be accurate. I see their point, but I think that asking for grammatical perfection in a redirect is not necessary. The point of a redirect is to get people to the article that contains the accurate facts, and this will achieve that goal. Just as I think the incorrect hyphenation is not a good reason to delete a redirect, I think the suboptimal preposition isn't a good reason to delete it. Also, it looks like an RM during the first weeks of the article's existence introduced the "in Ohio" idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Plausible, but not very popular" is a wild misrepresentation of the fundamental facts. This makes the assumption that A: writing a backwards, incorrect, non-existent / Google search prompt is "plausible", and B: a grand total of zero views with the last 12 months is "apparently not popular"... "Apparently"?? Even with the clunky overly-specific and still somehow incorrect title out of the way, was there a world that this title was even going to get a view? No, it's completely unnatural and would be expected to exist by zero people on Wikipedia. If you ask 100 people to describe the case in 30 different ways, I'm nearly positive that this title wouldn't appear ever, much less make the shortlist for likely and useful redirects. This is a search term, not worthy of a redirect. Search terms as redirects are a horrible precedent as is, as there's literally infinite search terms in existence and not worthwhile to entertain as long as Wikipedia has a build-in search box that captures every single variety, and everything I've tried has led to 100% accurate results as long as the text exists.
    And yet, with all of those tests, there are thousands of theoretical implausible search-term-redirects that could (and don't) exist. And all of the thousands would be far better options that 2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio in its current state, as it's literally a lie. On the chance that this is naturally typed into Wikipedia, with someone asking themselves "was this abortion in Indiana or Ohio?", they get a wrong answer. Why click further? The title implies the events already, and the implication is simply untrue. There's like 30+ other redirects currently here that capture every reasonable (and unreasonable) outcome, this untruth variant is simply not necessary. It's harmful and confusing and deletable per WP:RDEL #2. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Google, and even if it was, the redirect is still inaccurate. DrowssapSMM 13:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inaccurate and implausible search term. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a search engine StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function

Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see [10] [11]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find. 11wx (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing

"Easing" not mentioned at target, many possibilities for this term, including at Ease and the many many other articles that also use "ease" as a term or title. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ease: better target, since they're different forms of the same verb. DrowssapSMM 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ease as better target per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business for the Creative Industries

Not likely search term; only usecase was for the creator to link it on their user page as their PhD, and was eventually blocked for WP:PAID editing. I don't foresee this getting any further use, convoluted name and no definite target it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically a redirect-from-bizarre-definition and the likelihood of this being used again is vanishingly small. (It's also pointlessly vague - there are many other forms of creative industries besides music.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_14&oldid=1219075512"