Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 26

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Land where silk comes from → Serica  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: silk comes from many places Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. While this is a valid rough translation of the etymon of "Serica", the English phrase "land where silk comes from" is more likely to be a search query than a serious synonym. It already resembles a search query so let the search engine handle it; search results bring up a number of relevant results.

My second preference would be for a retarget to Names of China which mentions Serica and even explicitly states that it means land where silk comes from, or to History of silk which begins with "the production of silk originated in Neolithic China..." later also mentioning Serica.

I'd still prefer deletion; I don't think it's any more plausible that the non-existant place where silk comes from, country where silk comes from, or even simply where silk comes from, and I wouldn't suggest creating them and pointing them to Names of China or History of silk. Note that this phrase at Names of China is not referenced, and the wording was likely arbitrarily chosen by an editor who could have just as easily used "place" or "country" rather than "land". – Scyrme (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost envious that you don't know about Neelix and the tens of thousands of terrible redirects he created. We actually created a temporary

talk) 02:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yup. Here's how this one survived. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scryme's arguments. I almost want to retarget it to History of silk, but weighing the options, letting the search engine handle it seems marginally better. Fieari (talk) 07:20, 2 June 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

).

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. While neither editor in this discussion actually wrote the word "delete", there appears to be agreement that this redirect should not exist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate → Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect name according to chemical nomenclature rules.

• Support: We don't need both Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate as redirects. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:58, 26 May 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

).

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. ✗plicit 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ayurveda Company (T.A.C) → The Ayurveda Company  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Titles that have both a company name and its abbreviation are not useful redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree. This redirect was created after the target was moved to its current name without leaving a redirect, and then the page was recreated with substantially the same content (and without attribution in the edit comment). It should be deleted for that reason too. --Bsherr (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:Redirects are costly#Some unneeded redirects #2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:59, 29 May 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

).

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2021–2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies → 2021–2022 social unrest in the French West Indies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2021-2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies → 2021–2022 social unrest in the French West Indies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The target had been moved to this page in error and then moved back to its previous title. It is a sentence case miscapitalization of the target, so it is an unlikely search term. There are no significant links to the page. Bsherr (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To be clear, the page has been renamed back by your request. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We deliberately do not normally delete left-over pages from page moves if they existed for some while (more than a couple of weeks) because they can have internal or external incoming links and carry a page history. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  However, this one doesn't have a meaningful page history or any internal links. It's doubtful it accumulated many external links in the few weeks it was it the incorrectly capitalized title. --Bsherr (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Matthiaspaul. A7V2 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as harmless and potentially very harmful to delete per above. An incorrect capital after a sentence is started with numbers is common. J947 † ^edits 10:29, 3 June 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

).

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. Jay 💬 08:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia → Montenegro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to refer to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The current redirect is strange, it would make more sense if it redirected to an article with similar meaning (the proposed retarget) rather than the modern state. FusionSub (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NATO didn't occupy FR Yugoslavia during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, at least not literally, so my best guess is that this is a
  novel synonym not discussed at the target (reason 8). --Bsherr (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Bsherr, did not see any NATO occupation for the NATO article or Montenegro article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This destination is clearly a mistake, but the phrase seems plausible as a concept, and I thought of
  NATO intervention in Kosovo and that points to a section of the Kosovo War article, so maybe both of these redirects should point to the same place. The war article also already mentions the phrase "planned NATO occupation of Kosovo" (which was a part of FR Yugoslavia at the time). --Joy (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I also immediately thought of
  now, it may have actually been intended as an absurd joke. Given that this could refer to any number of post-Yugoslav topics and would be either imprecise (NATO bombing of Yugoslavia) or in the deep end of not-neutral (Kosovo, Kosovo Force), I don't think we should have a redirect from this title in the absence of actual, consistent use outside Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Rosguill well, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=NATO+occupied+FR+Yugoslavia does seem to contain a fair few book references to this idea in the context of the Kosovo conflict, so we might as well point readers there. --Joy (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Joy, that search is going to return results for anything that includes all 4 of those terms. If you limit it to the actual string "NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia" as in this search, I at least get exactly 1 result, from a book about the Kashmir conflict [1], and I'm further unable to find any mention of NATO or Yugoslavia in the actual text (although that might just be due to a preview limitation). I'd like to see broader use than that before creating the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The search results I pointed to, at least for me, are in fact talking about the combination of these words, though. Just because it's not an exact match that doesn't mean it's implausible for a reader to look something like this up. In any event, if we delete this, the first result of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=NATO%20occupied%20FR%20Yugoslavia&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 is Kosovo War anyway, so it makes little difference. --Joy (talk) 19:49, 5 June 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

).

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 speedy delete as patent nonsense per

WP:SNOW. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Collabororporation → Hipster (contemporary subculture)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect from a non-existent term; the user who created it hasn't made any other edit. Pageviews are not promising either. If there was ever a speedy deletion criterion for "terms with zero Google hits", this redirect would be an example of it.

• Delete: nonsensical. Veverve (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: complete gibberish. FusionSub (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Novel synonym not discussed at the target (reason 8). --Bsherr (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not a neologism yet. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Huh??? Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Searching outside Wikipedia is a deadend. The only results are for Wikipedia and its mirrors/copycats. Searching for the name of Thepicklesolution (talk · contribs), who created it, brings up a Tumblr blog with an about page stating We is the first collabororporation..., which evidently explains why this was created. – Scyrme (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:47, 27 May 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

).