Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2023.

Gryszkiewicz-Trochimowski and McCombie method[edit]

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 00:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Only mention on enwiki is a link to this redirect at List of organic reactions. Delete for lack of any relevant content. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. There was a mention of the Gryszkiewicz–Trochimowski and McCombie method in an old version of the article; it was removed in September 2010. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support deletion of both redirects for the reasons given above. --Leyo 20:59, 31 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).

Deoxofluorinating agent[edit]

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 retarget. As nom, I agree with retargeting and am closing the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, only mention on enwiki is in citations. Suggest deletion, as users currently using this term will not find any relevant information. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Organofluorine chemistry § Deoxofluorination. Obvious synonym for "deoxofluorination agent". – Scyrme (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that is where Deoxofluorination agent targets. I will retarget this and close the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:19, 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).

Legions of Hell[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5#Legions of Hell

Template:SG[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 5#Template:SG

Wikipedia:YOLO[edit]

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. ✗plicit 00:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see yolo in this article, so it should be deleted Q𝟤𝟪 18:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL! Old acro for "You only live once", popularized in 2012. Just another rougeism for "Carpe diem". Meh, WP it good! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't recall exactly why I created this back in 2016, probably something to do with a dramaboard/IRC discussion where people mentioned "rouge admins YOLOing" or similar. See YOLO (aphorism) for an explanation of the acronym's significance. If anyone has a better target for the redirect I wouldn't mind. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be in active use but is harmless enough and in project space so I'd rather keep it per WP:HUMOR. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Wordsmith. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:21, 31 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).

Fakeroot[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3#Fakeroot

Land where silk comes from[edit]

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]

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 criteria for deletion just to clean up after him. I'm kind of surprised this one survived that cleanup process, which took years to complete. In any event, I largely agree with the points you make and also thinbk it should be deleted Beeblebrox (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).

Di-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate[edit]

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]

Incorrect name according to chemical nomenclature rules. Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is correct and already exists as a redirect. Leyo 13:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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 Ayurveda Company (T.A.C)[edit]

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]

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]

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).

2021–2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies[edit]

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]

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).

Manfreid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3#Manfreid

NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia[edit]

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.
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 08:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 non-neutral redirect making an unsourced commentary about the current target, Montenegro, and should be deleted as 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 Kosovo Force when I saw it. At the same time, I checked 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 Kosovo Force, although given that this was created in 2017 and not 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).

Collabororporation[edit]

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:G1 and WP:SNOW. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:19, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_26&oldid=1179210738"