Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

May 22

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 22, 2021.

GTA 6

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 per the 2017 discussion. (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

There are no confirmed plans for Grand Theft Auto VI to come to WP:CRYSTALlization, as argued in the discussions for Grand Theft Auto VI and Grand Theft Auto 6 below. Why would we still need them lying around if that's the case? Regards, SONIC678 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Salt per below. Even if there were plans for this game the current target article has no mention of the 6th game or any future plans for the franchise. These should be salted if deleted as the two below have been frequent targets of unsourced hoax articles and spam. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt until a GTA 6 is officially announced. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't even come out. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The result of this discussion should coincide with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 8#Grand Theft Auto 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with the other discussion and noting previous discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the 2017 discussion given that the main series has more than six games. If you misremember the numbers or are looking for a hypothetical GTA VI title, that list would be helpful to either find which GTA game you were actually wanting, or can help confirm there is not (yet) a GTA VI. -- Tavix (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and the unanimous supported arguments I made in the 2017 discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 23 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.

Grand Theft Auto VI

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 per the 2017 discussion. (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This game does not exist, nor has been officially confirmed by Rockstar Games. Any video with the title official you see on YouTube are just hoax. It can also be a sort of crystal ball. No article uses this redirect page. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. The target article has no mention of GTA 6 and no mention of any future plans for the series. The only content in the page history is Hoax content about the game being released in 2017, sourced to fake videos on YouTube. If deleted this will probably need salting as there have been multiple attempts to make an article at this title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk • work) 09:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling, relisting with the other discussion, and noting previous discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 22 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.

Awesometown

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 disambiguate – with several extant topics now verifiably known as "Awesometown", and no argument that there is a primary topic. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesometown is a common nickname for Valencia, Santa Clarita, California and the adjacent unincorporated area of Valencia, California. It is also sometimes used to refer to Santa Clarita as a whole. Search "awesometown valencia" or "awesometown santa clarita" on Google or any other search engine for proof. Should be changed to disambiguation page. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 22 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.

Aerothermodynamics

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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in the target article. Claims of there being a separate subject area by another editor have been reverted for not providing sources. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:43, 22 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.

Pseudophysics

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Pseudophysics

Morai

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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, but might probably refer to other topics, such as Rashid Morai or a redlinked entry at {{Areas of Chennai}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't particularly care what happens to it, but if I had to make a decision I'd leave it as it is, since it's a term used when referring to heiau. Nurg (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:32, 22 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.

George Trebek

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. --BDD (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, a hatnote at Alex Trebek points to George Trebeck (with a "c"). Alex Trebek is, certainly, a more notable figure than George Trebeck. However, I can find barely any instances of anyone ever referring to Trebek by just his first and last names. The Googling is somewhat complicated by the fact that his father had the same first name, but "george trebek" -father turns up only one relevant result that I can find: this blog post describing an article the Ottawa Citizen allegedly ran in 1961. It refers to him as "George Trebek" in the headline but "George Alexander Trebek", second reference "Alexander", in the body. (I'll note that a search for the quoted headline returns only that blog post, nothing from the Citizen itself, and the blog isn't exactly an RS.)

Given all that, I find it rather unlikely that someone would search for our article on Trebek using this search term. I suppose someone could be looking for information about his father, but the article only says a few words about George E. Trebek, so in that case a redirect is misleading. I propose retargeting to George Trebeck with hatnote pointing to the current target. Second choice delete per WP:XY. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 13:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Added context (see underlined portion). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per a request on my talk page. Discussion was previously closed as keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People who are better known by their middle name than their real first name don't need redirects from the first names that almost nobody actually knows about. The likelihood that anybody would ever search for Alex Trebek by typing George Trebek in the search box is literally non-existent. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really borne out by actual data. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That just proves that people have searched for "George Trebek". It fails to prove that they did so intending to get to Alex, rather than looking for George Trebeck and landing on Alex by surprise. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) I'm responding to your argument for deletion. It could be that those readers are looking for something like George Trebeck, but that isn't an argument for deletion, that's an argument for the redirect to be retargeted. If the redirect is deleted then readers searching for targets other than Alex Trebek will be disadvantaged by suboptimal search results. If the redirect is kept as is or retargeted readers will easily access the article they are after via hatnotes that are already there (or would likely be added). So, why delete? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • A fundamental limitation of RFD is that we can't read the minds of people who access a redirect. But we can use common sense. Do we think that people are, with any regularity, typing in "George Trebek" because they're looking for Alex Trebek? That's not a rhetorical question. If the answer is "yes", we should keep the redirect, and if it's "no", we should retarget (per me) or delete (per Bearcat). But could you elaborate on why you think it's a "yes"? Number of hits alone isn't a good enough argument in either direction, since it's not like our readers get a "How satisfied are you with where this redirect pointed you?" quiz that pops up. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • My main concern as to this redirect is that it shouldn't be deleted as that harms readers' ability to find the right page, but the target doesn't matter so much as there's an appropriate hatnote. For me, there's negligible difference between where readers are looking between the two targets, and in that scenario, the correct name is generally prioritised as to not "punish" readers for entering a correct name. (FWIW, I think it's surprisingly common to remember a person's last name but only a less common given name – odd memory things.) J947's public account 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant "delete" specifically in the sense that it shouldn't be pointed to Alex. If somebody wants to repoint it to George instead of deleting it, or recreate a new redirect to George from the redlink after deleting it, I have no issue with that — I only have an issue with it being pointed to Alex. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:30, 22 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.

TLC Beatrice

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 29#TLC Beatrice

Fort Ree

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. --BDD (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results do not suggest that this is a commonly used alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless mentioned. My searches found that while it's not the most common name for the target, it does appear to be a notable name in the local area in reference to the high proportion of Korean residents (c.f. Koreatown, Fort Lee) so a mention might be due (it would require more research than I've done to determine that). Almost all the google results for other things are actually OCR errors or not English. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, refine to Koreatown in Fort Lee, since in Korean romanizations, the Korean name Lee can also be romanized as Rhee or Ree -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is one of those situations where WP:RNEUTRAL meets its limits. Without a mention at the target article, this gives the impression of Wikipedia endorsing a sly racist nickname, essentially a racist Easter egg. Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if the target article comes to mention this term. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:21, 2 June 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.

Kobe Jones

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Kobe Jones

Prince Filip

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 Prince Philip (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page created by banned user from Turkey, though our wikilink indicates the Prince was called Philip in Turkish too. This name is not the name in any of the languages of countries where the Prince was a royal, there are some Eastern European languages where the name is spelt Filip but A) the subject has nothing to do with those countries and B) there are many other princes called Philip who would be called Filip in those languages, this redirect is too generic Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:30, 22 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.

Radio 1 music for lady diana

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 29#Radio 1 music for lady diana

LifeWorks

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 Wrong venue - see WP:RM. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LifeWorks redirects to Richard Thieme, who founded a company named LifeWorks that was later renamed ThiemeWorks. I would like to move Morneau Shepell to LifeWorks to reflect the Canadian company's recent name change. The former Morneau Shepell is more notable than Thieme's company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:23, 22 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.

Jamie Jones (musician)

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. Jay's suggestion of Jamie Jones (singer) as a location for the AfC is well advised. If it is accepted, feel free to retarget this and Jamie Jones (Musician) to the disambiguation page at Jamie Jones. There is no consensus for the argument that Jamie Jones (DJ) is not a musician. --BDD (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a questionable redirect. Jamie Jones (DJ) is not a musician. There is a Draft:Jamie Jones (musician), which is being reviewed. In my judgment as a reviewer, it has more than a 50% chance of surviving an AFD, and should be accepted, but this redirect needs to be replaced with hatnotes between the two Jamie Jones articles. Please delete this redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robert McClenon, if you are wanting the draft to take this redirect's place (which it should) then go over to WP:RMTR. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment' to User:J947 - I respectfully disagree. Technical moves are for non-contentious moves, e.g., to upgrade from a redirect to an article. This is a controversial move, because the existing redirect is wrong. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, you said that Jamie Jones (DJ) is not a musician. Given that there are no other Jamie Jones (musician)s on the site, then shouldn't the draft take this redirect's place? I think this is pretty uncontroversial if DJs aren't considered musicians. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add Jamie Jones (Musician) to this entry. M uppercase. Jay (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about creating the alternative page as Jamie Jones (singer)? And Delete the musician redirects to avoid confusion, since a DJ is a musician too. Jay (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:31, 22 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_22&oldid=1136762205"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy