Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mila (moth)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mazuca. Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mila_(moth)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mila is a synonym of Mazuca. On GBIF, it lists Mila as a synonym for Mazuca. It also says on the Global Lepidoptera Names Index that the current name for the genus Mila is Mazuca. In addition, the only resource on the page is a search result from the Natural History Museum websites that lists different genuses in the family Noctuidae, and if you click on Mila, it will say on the page that it is a synonym for Mazuca. Turning this page into a redirect isn't necessary because if you search up "Mila (moth)" using the Wikipedia search box, the first two results, other than the page "Mila (moth)", will be the disambiguation page for Mila, as well as the page for Mazuca. FozzieH (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Redirect as Mazuca isn't Mila(moth), the search engine will not list it as Mazuca. ALso, Mazuca is like, the 8th article listed in the search.Leomk0403 (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Mazuca might not be the first thing that appears when you search up "Mila moth" in a regular search engine, other genuses of moths don't have similar redirects. For example, Angas is a synonym for the genus of moth Actias, yet there is no page named "Angas (moth)", nor is there any redirect page for when you search up "Angas moth". FozzieH (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mila is a synonym of Mazuca. On GBIF, it lists Mila as a synonym for Mazuca. It also says on the Global Lepidoptera Names Index that the current name for the genus Mila is Mazuca. In addition, the only resource on the page is a search result from the Natural History Museum websites that lists different genuses in the family Noctuidae, and if you click on Mila, it will say on the page that it is a synonym for Mazuca. Turning this page into a redirect isn't necessary because if you search up "Mila (moth)" using the Wikipedia search box, the first two results, other than the page "Mila (moth)", will be the disambiguation page for Mila, as well as the page for Mazuca. Not FozzieH (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, but what is happening? FozzieH (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! where did that impersonator came from?Leomk0403 (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mazuca - this is why we have {{R from alternative scientific name}}. This should be a merge discussion and not a deletion discussion. Folks coming across the synonym in an old book will want to know what it is called now. It’s listed as a synonym, and not referred to obliquely as that-which-must-not-be-named. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - synonym redirects are standard and wanted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm really sorry, but I'm really confused. If you look for Angas, it doesn't redirect to Actias but a disambiguation page, along with other synonyms, such as Hera for Hemileuca or Theophila for Bombyx. All those either send you to a disambiguation page, or an article with a disambiguation page in the header. Shouldn't Mila follow suit and also lead to a disambiguation page, like it already does, or should the other ones be edited? I'm really really sorry if I'm not getting my point across or if I'm coming off as aggressive or arrogant; I'm really new to this process, but I really need help understanding. FozzieH (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's something of a corner case and I can't claim to know The Answer, but I'd say that this situation (genus name has multiple other meanings, and is a synonym), a) if the genus use can be distinguished from the other uses by a parenthetical clarification (as here) that's good and should be done; and b) being a synonym does not mean that it's not a valid search term - we want redirects for those, and their inclusion in a disambiguation does not mean that there should not be a separate redirect. E.g. for genus Angas, we are just plain missing a redirect Angas (moth) - I'd establish that and then add it to the disambiguation at Angas. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I've added a redirect for the Angas example above to show how situations like this should be handled. Ideally, genus synonyms (or synonyms for species, or family, etc. in those type of taxon articles) should be included in the article taxobox (appropriately referenced), and redirects made for each synonym; this isn't done most of the time, and I can see how it caused confusion for the OP. Esculenta (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.