Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 1

July 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2024.

Porch monkey

Porch monkey → List of ethnic slurs#P (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Porch Monkey → List of ethnic slurs#P (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer mentioned at target. The second redirect is fully protected, so I cannot tag it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned at List of ethnic slurs and epithets by ethnicity, although that article does seem like a WP:CFORK to me. 162 etc. (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that List of ethnic slurs and epithets by ethnicity and List of ethnic slurs have a CFORK problem; the only difference scope-wise is sorting order, with the original target being alphabetically sorted by the slurs and the other list being sorted by target ethnicity. This issue should probably be resolved (and the two pages possibly re-merged) before we figure out where this should target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've added the RfD tag to the second redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lockdowns

The lockdowns → COVID-19 lockdowns (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While the COVID-19 measures are probably the freshest in people's memories, I think that "the lockdowns" is too broad to use as a redirect to that topic and therefore propose retargeting to the general topic of lockdown. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regerget as {{R from plural}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rererget per above. If the readers were looking for the covid lockdown in particular, they can scroll down to the section covering it easily. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The pandemic and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 9#The pandemic; while there may be some WP:RECENTISM, most who will use the term "the lockdowns" (emphasis on the), will likely be referring to the COVID lockdowns, especially with the established precedent of "the pandemic." — Knightoftheswords 23:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reherget~~ I mean keep - agreeing with Knight, the lockdowns is likely intended to be the covid lockdowns BugGhost 🪲👻 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep literally 100% of the results on the first five pages (when I stopped looking) of a Google search for "The lockdowns" -Wikipedia refer to the Covid-19 lockdowns - you can't get a clearer example of a primary topic. Usually for something like this I'd expect to find mentions of one or more non-notable bands, esports teams, instagram users or something like that, but I'm just not. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Retargeg~~ per LaundryPizza, Ca, and Nom. I find the idea that "The lockdowns" is specifically primary to COVID-19 lockdowns to be a severe case of WP:RECENTISM; the Covid-19 pandemic was a massive global event, yes, but so was, say, World War 1. Four years after WW1, it was probably extremely easy to say "The War" and people knew you were talking about WW1; ten or twenty years after WW1, not so much. If people really are looking for the Covid-19 lockdowns, the proposed retarget-- Lockdown-- has a hatnote to it right at the top of the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What matters for the purposes of redirects is what people are looking for now. What people might be looking for in 10 or 20 years (or even 2 years) is irrelevant WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing. If the primary topic changes then we can and should change the target of the redirect, but we do readers a disservice by not taking them to what they want to read directly now because they might (or might not) be looking for something different later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...I suppose that's fair. Withdrawing vote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lockdown doesn't really list specific lockdowns, if List of lockdowns existed this would be a better target but otherwise I'd probably suggest to keep as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of lockdowns should be linked in a hatnote from the present target if it is created, but it should not be the target itself due to the present target being the overwhelming primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be leaning towards keep. Relisting for further input...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget too general of a term to apply to a specific event. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Auckland

City of Auckland → Auckland City (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The City of Auckland is a distinct entity from Auckland City. It is not discussed in proper detail in the Auckland article nor the Auckland City article. I do believe it has the merits to meet notability on it's own: e.g. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46925/46925-h/46925-h.htm Deletion would be the best option as it doesn't mislead readers into a different entity and might encourage someone to create an article on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All that's needed is to tag it with Template:R with possibilities. I've done so. Schwede 66 08:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't believe it's a good redirect. Auckland City is completely different to the City of Auckland. It'd be like having New York County redirect to New York City. It is only a partial continuation in area and most of Auckland City's area is from the County of Eden. The term being redirected serves to confuse the reader into thinking City of Auckland (note the important capitalisation as a proper noun) is just another name for Auckland or Auckland City. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Write content seems to be the obvious answer here. It needn't be more than a short paragraph detailing the status, extent, etc. on whichever of Auckland or Auckland City is the broader. This redirect can then be targetted there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be an article on the district that has existed since 2010 just like City of York deals with the district that was created in 1996 even though there was one that existed from 1835 to 1996. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be content but in the absence of it I do not believe the current redirect is appropriate as it is misleading. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone (color)

Tone (color) → Lightness (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Tone (color theory) → Tint, shade and tone (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These two redirects should point to the same article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is an ambiguous term? There are separate articles about color and color theory – and color science! – and colorimetry and color appearance model! In English, "tone" has many meanings; the applicable meaning here is " The shade or quality of a colour." (disambiguation of an ambiguous term by a definition which uses more ambiguous terms). Is there really such a thing as color quality (quality (color)?? – wbm1058 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidosauria Varanus

Lepidosauria Varanus → Bengal monitor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

just two of the higher taxa that happen to include the Bengal monitor; not entirely dissimilar to this other since-deleted redirect Spizaetus (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this combination of taxa even a thing? If this is just an original term then Delete. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]