From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22
June 24 >

June 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 23, 2024.

Double Disc Album

Technically not useful as the redirect Double disc album (the correct spelling) already exists and MediaWiki isn't case sensitive. Killarnee ( talk) 22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ...what? I often use the URL bar to type in my searches, and if I make a capitalization error there outside of the first character, it doesn't take me to the correct place. Keep as MediaWiki is case-sensitive, and I'd recommend withdrawing unless you want to go against the precedent of the entirety of Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations. ( WP:RCAPS is also worth mentioning). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I often use the URL bar to type in my searches, and if I make a capitalization error there outside of the first character, it doesn't take me to the correct place.
    Here's a tip: While the URL bar is case sensitive (and has to be; we have plenty of articles where case is relevant; see MAVEN vs Maven), the Search bar isn't, unless there are extant separate articles for each capitalization. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I know that much, but it's a habit that's hard to break. I do it while knowing the search function is better; who's to say there's not people that do it while not knowing much about the search function? Besides, this excerpt from WP:RCAPS shows some other areas where case-sensitivity is important: While Wikipedia's search function is generally case-insensitive, these redirects aid linking from other articles and external sites. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as a normal {{ R from miscapitalisation}}. Skynxnex ( talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Skynxnex and Skarmory. The URL bar is not the only case sensitive method of navigating Wikipedia, and we should always be agnostic to which method people use. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

City of Auckland

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

Calesín:

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 speedy delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I did a move from Calesín: to Calesín to remove the colon at the end, but it left behind this remnant redirect. Please delete it since it serves no purpose.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:47, 23 June 2024 (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).

Dante' stallworth

Delete for multiple errors. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete 24 views in a year and none this month. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Draftspace to userspace XNRs

XNRs from draftspace to userspace from the list provided by User:Dsuke1998AEOS in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_15#Draft:Immanuelle/Draft_Staggering. None of these redirects lead to drafts and such pages should not have been made in draftspace in the first place. I did not nominate any redirect that leads to a draft, but I wouldn't be opposed to deleting those if someone else wanted to. Nickps ( talk) 13:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete all Each appears to have been created by accident, and serves no functional navigational purpose. Ca talk to me! 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Fine by me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Added Draft:VikasGodara0001/VKG Royal Controller which I missed. It leads to a user page. Nickps ( talk) 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom (who in turn cites me!). All of these redirects were created in error. WP:RDRAFT only specifies that redirects from draft to article namespace should be kept, but it says nothing about redirects leading to other namespaces. For that reason, I would also support deleting the other redirects in the list. Dsuke1998AEOS ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Red Flag (nuclear weapon)

There is no mention of "red flag" in the article making this redirect confusing. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

So fix the article. This originally belonged in Category:Rainbow Codes, but that was stupidly deleted. It might still be mentioned at List of Rainbow Codes. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tone (color)

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

The lockdowns

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." — Knightof theswords 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
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_23&oldid=1231071914"