Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2021.

Shelley Luther[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 retarget to 2020 Texas State Senate election#Special elections. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect should be either deleted or written as its own article. Currently it amounts to juvenile mockery. Jesdisciple (talk) 20:39, 3 May 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.

Sevmacs (ethnic group of North Macedonia)[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 soft delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirects from unsourced and unattested, potentially offensive neologisms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 3 May 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.

BarackRoll[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 retarget to Hugh Atkin. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as an article, which was redirected per AfD, but is not currently explained at the target. The term is mentioned in multiple articles, but Hugh Atkin seems to be the best option. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 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.

Template:Mets-Yankees rivalry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 16#Template:Mets-Yankees rivalry

Fear the Hunters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Fear the Hunters

Professional agrologist[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 Restored article without prejudice to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new redir has been placed at Professional agrologist, pointing to Agriculturist, while also leaving the original content in the former. Now, I'm no expert, but to me those don't look like they're the same thing, and as such I don't think the redir is justified (I would have said hatnotes or 'see also' could have been added instead). But rather than just remove the redir, I'm after second opinions here. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article as above. The bold redirect was recent. This should then be discussed whether agrologist and agriculturalist should remain split or merged. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:01, 4 May 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.

Wild Wild West 2[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 10:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Wild Wild West 2. Since the movie was a critical and financial failure there may never be. This is just pure WP:CRYSTAL material. Dominicmgm (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree. --Bsherr (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article doesn’t even mention a potential sequel and this can easily be recreated if for some reason they later decide to make one.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 03:20, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia:MANDARINS[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 no consensus. ✗plicit 11:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of "mandarins" within the target article. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the redirect doesn't seem very natural. Tamwin (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 3 May 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.

Template:Str rt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Template:Str rt

Template:Str rep all[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect. User:GKFXtalk 07:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it does what it says, it is the complement to {{Str rep}} which allows replacement of all instances. Therefore it is useful in relation to the naming of the other function, "Str rep" atleast for searching -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was from before Lua modules, now not needed ({{Replace}} does the job and is well documented, also wrt number of replacements). Extra names is needlessly confusing. - (creator) DePiep (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:51, 3 May 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.

Tinkling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 12#Tinkling

Damien Monteith[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 10:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally linked to a list where the name linked to another list, which linked back to the first list ... T*U (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Indeed, not functional. --Bsherr (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notable person of such a name. Searches point to a random engineer person or the Glee cast members Damian McGinty and Cory Monteith AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 4 May 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.

Casio Value Stores[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 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No connection to the target article established. Additions to the target article were completely unsourced and without any credibility. T*U (talk) 07:29, 3 May 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.

Cory Murphy (film producer)[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 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and there is no indication that anything about the term could be learned from the target article. Originally created to avoid redlink in a list article, instead sending user on a wild goose chase. T*U (talk) 07:18, 3 May 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.

James Groening (film producer)[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 10:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and there is no indication that anything about the term could be learned from the target article. Originally created to avoid redlink in a list article, instead sending user on a wild goose chase. T*U (talk) 07:17, 3 May 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.

James Groening[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 11:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and there is no indication that anything about the term could be learned from the target article. T*U (talk) 07:15, 3 May 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.

Data West[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 11:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and there is no indication that anything about the term could be learned from the target article. T*U (talk) 07:13, 3 May 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.

DATA WEST[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 11:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and there is no indication that anything about the term could be learned from the target article. T*U (talk) 07:11, 3 May 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.

PG-13[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 no consensus. No clear consensus between the status quo and alternative targets. One of the participants also raised concerns about the framing of this discussion, so it may be pertinent to continue discussion on the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target had been Motion Picture Association film rating system which is US only. New target does cover many countries, but it is sort-of a list article. Looking at PG-13 (disambiguation), I think that is a better "target", so I propose moving the dab to the base name. Note that PG13 already redirects to the dab. It makes sense that PG13/PG-13 go to the same place. MB 04:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no objections in principle to this but I have temporarily reverted the change, because the incoming links need to be addressed first. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/PG-13 shows, there are a substantial number of incoming links that clearly relate to the only the MPAA film rating. Facts707 was lazy in changing the redirect and not addressing the incoming links. Readers who follow this link expect exposition on the US film rating, since they are following links from articles about American films. I suggest a solution along the following lines:
  1. Move PG-13 to PG-13 (Motion Picture Association). This will mirror the solution at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R_rating_(Motion_Picture_Association)&redirect=no.
  2. This will create a double redirect that the Wikipedia software will automatically correct after a few days.
  3. Once the software fixes the double redirect then move PG-13 (disambiguation) to PG-13.
Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the redirect as it was, targets should not be changed while there is an open RFD. I also found there were only 100 articles involved and ran them through AWB to re-target those that were clearly about US rated motion pictures. Now there are only about a dozen left which should go to the dab. No need for the round-robin move discussed above. MB 15:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the long-standing redirect. This redirect has redirected to Motion Picture Association film rating system since its creation 17 years ago, before it was altered earlier to day. I have restored this redirect because it affects all the incoming links. The discussion should come before changing the redirect, not after it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confusing the situation. The target listed at the very top of this discussion is incorrect because you changed the target AFTER the discussion was started. This is not the correct procedure. MB 15:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The procedure is to start the discussion before changing the link, not after. The change you are proposing is a no-brainer on your terms, because none of the incoming links should redirect to the new link. If there is to be a discussion it should be about the long-standing link, which is potentially a primary topic. I actually support your proposal but the discussion should be about the original link. Only two editors have responded so far so you can easily fix the proposal, or alternatively you can close it and start a new one. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I believe this discussion is being conducted in poor faith. This is the sequence of events:
    1. This redirect was created in 2003 and until today has always redirected to Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#PG-13, because the MPA PG-13 rating was considered the primary topic for a long time. It had a substantial number of incoming links that explicitly referred to the MPA's PG-13 rating.
    2. Earlier today, this page was redirected to Motion picture content rating system without discussion, and without addressing all the incoming links.
    3. A discussion was started here by MB proposing the disambiguation page at PG-13 (disambiguation) is moved to the base name.
    4. I restored the redirect to the WP:STATUSQUO but this has been reverted by MB (see [1]) on the pretext of this discussion.
    However, I believe this discussion should take place in the context of the long-standing (17 years-old) redirect. A discussion about a redirect to Motion picture content rating system is a fundamentally different discussion to one about a redirect to a potential primary topic atMotion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#PG-13. This pretext that we must conduct the discussion on a false premise because it has already "started" is a very poor reason IMO. Since only two people have engaged in this discussion the proposal can easily be fixed. This redirect has been in place for 17 years, potentially redirects to a primary topic and should be discussed on those terms IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment In a nutshell I believe the real issue is whether the MPA's PG-13 rating covered at Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system#PG-13 is the primary topic from those outlined at PG-13 (disambiguation). For 17 years until this morning when the redirect was changed the rating was considered the primary topic. However, 17 years is a long time and more articles covering various PG-13 ratings have been added to Wikipedia. In view of these extra topics is it still correct to treat the MPA rating as the primary topic, or as MB suggests replace the redirect with the disambiguation page. Despite my disagreement with MB over how the discussion has been conducted I do agree with the proposal; I think the MPA ratings article will still get the bulk of the incoming traffic because of the focus on English-language films on Wikipedia (especially Hollywood productions) but I think if there was balanced coverage then there probably wouldn't be a primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 3 May 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.

Joe Allen (restaurateur)[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. Consensus that this is an alternate spelling of the word. Target to avoid double redirect. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per R3; page title created in error. I moved the redirect to the "correct" title prior to nominating this redirect. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless. R3 doesn't apply because this redirect was created by a page move. As an aside, please don't move redirects. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing any evidence that this redirect was in fact created by a page move. GiantSnowman created this in February as it shows in the original page history, prior to the move that was done by the nom. CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It absolutely, 100%, was created by a page move. It's just a bit confusing. Think about an article title being moved. A redirect is left at the old title. This is the same scenario but more confusing. The speedy deletion was out of line. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, scratch that. Restaurateur is the normal spelling of the word. Restauranteur, is oddly enough, the misspelling (or odd alternative term). I didn't know that. Jimfbleak (or any admin who comes across this), please undelete as this redirect is the correct title. Ah, shit. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no idea that the disambiguator in the original title was spelt correctly (otherwise I'd never have nominated it). Someone please undo the damage I've caused. As an aside, "restauranteur" is the correct spelling where I'm from, so it's possibly just an English variation. I'm not fussed as to whether we keep or delete the new redirect, so long as it's in the best interests of Wikipedia. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, definitely not your fault. I would've spelt it like that as well so maybe it's an Australasian thing. The new redirect should be kept at the very least as a common alternative term, whether misnomer or not. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for showing good faith, it's not something I'm used to around here anymore. I agree with your suggestion, sound like a good idea. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reopened this discussion as the redirect has now been restored. I personally have no opinion on whether we should keep this redirect or not, but I guess it could be useful to see if other editors are willing to provide any further input. CycloneYoris talk! 09:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wiktionary lists "restaurateur" and "restauranteur" as alternative spellings of the same word with a note part of which says that the spelling with an "n" "is considered erroneous by some, and the form restaurateur (without the n) is preferred in formal writing, and especially in the United Kingdom." so regardless of which title the article is at the other should redirect there tagged as {{R from other disambiguation}} in the same way that Aqua (colour) redirects to Aqua (color). Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both to Joe Allen (restaurant) now that both are acceptable alternative spellings. The RM/TR to fix it up to restaurateur was declined. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:37, 4 May 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.

M178'[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 06:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what the apostrophe on the end is for, but the Mercedes engine is just M178, and is covered in Mercedes-Benz M176/M177/M178 engine anyway. M178 already exists. This is just confusing. MB 01:32, 3 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_3&oldid=1024718030"