Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 18, 2023.

Golden Triangle (slavery)[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. Term is now mentioned at target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This name isn't used in the target article. While readers can probably reasonably assume it's a synonym, the redirect is of limited use, and likely to cause confusion, in the absence of some explanation of how and by whom the term is used and whether its meaning differs at all. Discussion at the talk page hasn't indicated any interest in adding such a mention. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: Keep – I don't see the problem here: it's an example of "Triangular trade". ([1], [2]) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it's not mentioned at the target it's not a useful redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is mentioned but it's mentioned through synonymous terms, so this redirect would help readers find the content they're looking for. It would probably be more helpful to add a mention, since sources using this term aren't hard to find. This redirect could then be used at Golden Triangle, a disambiguation page which should list this topic given Wikipedia does have content about it.
    The term is similar enough to the title that I don't think it would be surprising even without a mention. The problem I see is that Triangular trade initially frames itself as a general article about trade between any three locations, despite most of its content being about the Atlantic slave trade (which links to Triangular trade as the "main article" for the topic); a reader might assume that "Golden Triangle" is synonymous with "triangular trade" in the general sense, when it's actually specifically a term for the Atlantic slave trade. I'm not sure which of these two articles, Triangular trade or Atlantic slave trade, is the best place to add a mention. – Scyrme (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pppery. This began as a stub article entitled "The golden triangle" written by an account with a whopping 2 edits. Their other edit created a stub article entitled "Dread Scott", later redirected to Dred Scott as a misspelling. Both stubs were written at a time when Triangular trade and Dred Scott already existed. The stubs were uncited, including the following sentence in the Triangle article: This was called the Golden Triangle because the passage was paid for and the ship along the way, for at each step profit was made. Note the discrepancy between the lowercase title (which is sourced, as in "a golden triangle of profitability") and the uncited "The Golden Triangle" of the article. Because it is really not another name for the slave trade, only a description or characterization of same. For example, neither "Triumph of engineering nor "Triumph of Engineering", redirect to Panama Canal, Golden Gate Bridge or Interstate Highway System. So it has little in the way of value, especially considering that its 16 year edit history is exceedingly short, with the final version before redirection remaining unsourced. StonyBrook babble 05:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to keep due to it being a plausible search term, especially in light of Jay's edits. StonyBrook babble 23:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a mention at the target using one of Edward's sources. I also tagged the redirect as {{R with history}}. Jay 💬 05:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the target now mentioning the term, keep.
    I've also added an entry at the disambiguation page Golden Triangle. – Scyrme (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Immigration to North Korea[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 restore. I will let next steps, if any, to be left to editorial discretion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, or replacement with an article. Is immigration to this country limited to South Koreans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apokrif (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • REvert to the old state's intro para only. Add summary style section for the current target. Add some info from Americans in North Korea etc. During the Korean War, some people did defect. And since, such as that incident recently in the DMZ with the U.S. soldier. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per nom. Wait a week and see if additional content is added per the IPs suggestions, and any of us may boldly move it to Ivan's suggested title if there are no updates. Jay 💬 06:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving the article isn't really what Ivanvector suggested; they suggested moving the redirect. There already is an article about "South Korean defection to North Korea" located at the current target; it's why the author of the article blanked and redirected it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. Struck off. If no additional content is being added to the restored version, move it to draft. Jay 💬 05:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

HEVR (High Explosive Violent Reaction)[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 💬 06:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Title which includes both a name and an abbreviation. Suggesting deletion, per Wikipedia:Redirects are costly#Some unneeded redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep since this title isn't a totally implausible search term, given that the target article was originally created under this title and the redirect has already gotten pretty decent pageviews in the intervening month or so. These redirects with an abbreviation followed by a long name in parentheses certainly shouldn't be created often per the essay you linked, but since redirects are cheap, it doesn't really hurt to have them around. (By the way, @Hey man im josh, I noticed this discussion because you were on a roll reviewing the redirects I've created, though you apparently had issues with this one.) Duckmather (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (very weak) this was the original title in article space and was there for almost a day. I don't see this redirect as particularly harmful to keep but agree they shouldn't, in general, be created outside of page moves. Skynxnex (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I don't disagree with the comments above, but the page was at this title for slightly less than a day, and the pageviews since it was moved away don't suggest that it has been externally linked. But it's also harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: if people use it, then keep per WP:RKEEP#5. Also, harmless. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Titles with both a name and an abbreviation are costly. The pageviews argument isn't very convincing, since they dropped off to nothing very shortly after the redirect was created during the move. – Scyrme (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Zayn Khan[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 moot. No longer a redirect. ✗plicit 23:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actor isn't listed on the list. And there's not enough information to send the redirect somewhere more useful Mason (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Han River (TV series)[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 List of Star (Disney+) original programming#Korean. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target and it seems the title is Han River Police not Han River, per the sources I found. I could be incorrect on the latter point/it could be irrelevant if it is also referred to as Han River, but if there is no entry added to the page List of Disney+ original programming this redirect should be deleted. TartarTorte 18:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

August 4 riot[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While these new redirects are borderline searchable, the main difficulty I find is that they are actually slightly ambiguous (and possibly also suffer from WP:RECENTISM). A different riot occurred on August 4, 1942 at the Santa Anita Assembly Center. On the face of it, this potential confusion points to the possibility that these redirects should be disambiguated, but I personally think they should be deleted. Date article names should only be used if an event is heavily associated with that date—not simply because it happened on such-and-such date. See for example September 11 attacks and January 6 United States Capitol attack as examples of the former, and the lack of a June 24 building collapse as an example of the latter. StonyBrook babble 13:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Crack stem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 3#Crack stem

The Original Series[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. Deemed to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT after WP:SMALLDETAILS is taken into account with the capitalization. The hatnote serves a good enough job right now. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague and general to apply specifically to Star Trek. This page name could refer to the concept of Original programming (as said in the hatnote on the target page), as well as The Originals (TV series), and more generally, the initial entries in any media franchise which has seen continuation in the form of sequels, reboots, spin-offs, and the like. I feel that this redirect should be either disambiguated or redirected to a more general target. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The exact phrasing and capitalization of "The Original Series" is long associated with Star Trek (from what I've seen, anyway) and searching for "The Original Series" on Google returns pages of results about Star Trek: The Original Series before other topics are mentioned. The hatnote on the article is enough to resolve any confusion, in my opinion. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for this exact construct. Complex/Rational 16:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Vlad Zachary[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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection between this Redirect and the Redirect target article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This seems to be the target's real name, which used to be the original title until BabsonAlum7 moved it to Vladimiri Zachar in 2015 and then to its current title a little under two years later. There is a discussion on the talk page about whether the name "Frank Satire" is a valid alternative name for the target, and if the target should be moved back to the redirect's title. Not sure about my position yet, but it might be worth looking at. Regards, SONIC678 05:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Suimono[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 27#Suimono

The Amazon[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 Amazon per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is particle "the" sufficient for natural disambiguation? fgnievinski (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore the earlier target - the disambiguation page Amazon. It can be the river, the river basin, the forest, etc. Jay 💬 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, it's a page I made! I agree with Jay -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amazon disambiguation page. People searching for "The Amazon" could be looking for several items on that page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Amazon dab page per Richard-of-Earth. --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - "The" in this context is rather vague. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Amazon per those above. There are multiple things on that page to which the entire phrase may refer. BD2412 T 19:06, 21 August 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_August_18&oldid=1173699620"