Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22

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) dudhhr_Contribs 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GTA 6 → Grand Theft Auto#Titles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GTA VI → Grand Theft Auto#Titles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Delete all per above. Salt would be premature though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:57, 21 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.

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) dudhhr_Contribs 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand Theft Auto VI → Grand Theft Auto#Titles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Grand Theft Auto 6 → Grand Theft Auto#Titles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Delete and salt per above. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:58, 21 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) 22:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Given the confusing naming of the series, this seems like a useful redirect, and I don't think it does any harm. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix and the 2017 discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 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.

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 → The Lonely Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Keep. Right now, Awesometown as a nickname for Valencia isn't mentioned in any article, so a disambiguation page is a non-starter. If it were mentioned, then disambiguation could be achieved with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. The only mentions of "Awesometown" I can find on Wikipedia currently relate to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are plenty of sources that mention the use of "Awesometown" as a nickname for Valencia and/or Santa Clarita. There is the Los Angeles Times, Curbed, the Santa Clarita Valley Signal, NBC Los Angeles, and the city of Santa Clarita itself. The name "Awesometown" was used by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (which developed Valencia) to advertise Valencia.
  Update: I added the "Awesometown" nickname to the Valencia, Santa Clarita article with a source. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few mentions that don't relate to the current target, so I'm not sure where the keep as is !voters are coming from. See for example Jack Black, Parry Gripp, and List of city nicknames in California#V. J947^{'s public account} 22:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per nom and per J947's findings immediately above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:51, 11 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.

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]

• Aerothermodynamics → Aerodynamic heating  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Morai → Heiau  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Comment I also searched this redirect looking for Moirai. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @OcelotCreeper Could also be a typo of Mirai. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "morae, marae, morai - term used by foreign observers when referring to heiau" - https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/kona/historyg.htm Nurg (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to marae per Nurg. marae means a sacred place that serves religious and social purposes in Polynesian societies. Morai is indeed mentioned in the current target, see the image captioned "An illustration of a heiau at Kealakekua Bay at the time of James Cook's third voyage, by William Ellis." The image says it is a view of a Morai. The image description at Commons says it is of a Morai at Kealakekua Bay. The Kealakekua Bay article mentions Morai as a sacred burial ground. Jay (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. It can include Rashid Morai, the redlinked entry at {{Areas of Chennai}} (last I checked WP:RED, this is allowed), the term morae, marae, morai, and possibly Moirai and Mirai in a see also section. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:17, 5 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]

• Disambiguate seems prudent, seeing as we've come up with four more or less reasonable targets (heiau, Rashid Morai, moirai, marae). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig, I've drafted one below the redirect based on the above comments. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 5 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.

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]

• George Trebek → Alex Trebek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Keep - I can't understand what this proposal is about because George Trebek is a page, not a redirect. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kautilya3: Perhaps the issue is the similar titles? George Trebek, the subject of this RFD, redirects to Alex Trebek. George Trebeck (note the "c"), my proposed new target, is an article about a 19th-century explorer. Unless I'm hallucinating here... -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kautilya3: err, George Trebek is a redirect to Alex Trebek, and has been since creation in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. (Sorry for all the confusion!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most people would guess at "-eck", not "-ek", if they didn't know the spelling, and it's unlikely that this would ever have been created as a redirect to George Trebeck. If there are sources for this as an alternative spelling of Trebeck, I would support retargeting. Peter James (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although not common, I did find this with "George A. Trebek". MB 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I personally think that Alex Trebek is a better target, since George Trebek is a less common name of George "Alex Trebek", whereas its only a misspelling of George Trebeck. The latter is also only a stub, and gets far less page views. However, I do understand where the nominator (Tamzin) was going. Additionally, when I compared the page views of the redirect with that of George Trebeck, in an attempt to see if the redirect had more page views (therefore proving that most people who took the redirect didn't immediately jump to the George Trebeck article), I found that the article had more page views, disproving my original point. However this doesn't directly prove that more people are actually looking for the George Trebeck article when typing "George Trebek", so this is staying as my opinion unless that gets proved. Mattx8y (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. SCP-053 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  — SCP-053 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waitemata (talk • contribs). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 21:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, correct names should generally be prioritised over incorrect names. The hatnote suffices. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:35, 7 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]

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.

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]

• Fort Ree → Fort Lee, New Jersey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Prince Filip → Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Retarget to Prince Philip (disambiguation). At least two of the people listed there (Philippe of Belgium and Prince Philip of Yugoslavia) are known as Filip in a native language. - Eureka Lott 14:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Eureka Lott. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 19:10, 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.

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 → Richard Thieme  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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.

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]

• Jamie Jones (musician) → Jamie Jones (DJ)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

• Comment is he a musician or a music producer? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 09:37, 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.