Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2015.

Dylann[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 per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should lead to Dylan (name). Especially once Dylann Roof's shooting ceases to be a current event, I suspect that more people will be searching for people named "Dylan" than this one particular person who spells it with a double N. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this redirect is an {{R from given name}}, and redirects to Dylann Roof because "Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this given name." Retargeting to Dylan (name) isn't helpful because Dylann Roof is the only person at that page to spell his name that way. In case someone accidentally used "Dylann" to look for someone named "Dylan", a hatnote will help that person find what they are looking for. (Note: I am the creator) -- Tavix (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 12#Johnni. -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to retarget to Dylan (name) as his name is no longer unique on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without expressing an !vote at this stage, the justification for the current redirect seems to be having a bet each way. "There is only one important Dylann" versus someone may type "Dylann to look for someone named Dylan". Well, it seems to me that BOTH of these situations can be addressed by having Dylann redirect to Dylan, where every Dylann/Dylan is found regardless of the searcher's intent. WWGB (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "bet", it's how we handle people with unique given names. Template:R from given name makes this clear. Using this template adds the entry to a category where you can see all of the unique given names. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Dylan (name). Redirecting a generic first name headword to the article of a racist mass murderer strikes me as a bit of a BLP problem, for anyone else named "Dylann". Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Lankiveil: Did you notice that there isn't anyone else on Wikipedia with that name? Would you want to delete/retarget the other redirects in Category:Redirects from given names? BLP has nothing to do with it, it's simply his name and it happens to be unique. As long as someone has a unique name, there should be an {{R from given name}} if nothing else than for categorization purposes. -- Tavix (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you realise there are people with this name who are not in Wikipedia. BLP protections aren't just for article subjects. The fact that nobody else with this spelling has gotten an article written about them yet is irrelevant. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Its not irrelevant, it's exactly what the rcat says: "This is a redirect from a person's given name. It is used because Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this given name." If you want to change the rules, it'd be best to nominate that rcat for deletion because it's used for several hundred redirects. Yes, it's unfortunate that there's a few people that share the name with a murderer, but unless any of those people become notable, Dylann Roof will continue to have a "unique" name. -- Tavix (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget per nom -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Tavix. I hate to give this guy any further prominence, but a hatnote is the way to deal with this. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bounty: I'll give a barnstar to anyone who can make an article on Dylann Duncan, "winner of the 1989 NCAA Top VI Award for volleyball". I may also donate $10 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the NAACP, or another relevant organization of your choice. (Ask me for details.) If we have multiple articles on people named Dylan, retargeting to the name page will be appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lankiveil: I'm really impressed that you would take the time to create an article on a completely unrelated person. This is one of the best "compromised" solutions I think I've ever seen here. Thank you for that. My concerns are no longer relevant and we can now retarget to Dylan (name) without any problems. Everyone wins and we get a new article out of the situation. -- Tavix (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou, and good vibes should also be sent to User:WWGB who took my stub, added more sources, and a nice infobox as well. A good result all around, I think. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retarget. It's a plausible typo for Dylan, and there is also a potentially notable second person by the name of Dylann listed above. I'm not aware of any consensus (in the the form of an actual guideline or policy) that says we should be redirecting given names to BLPs, anyway. Such a guideline would probably have to address situations like this, where the BLP in question in that of a racist murderer. I would imagine it's a bit contentious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Tavix notes, {{R from given name}} can be used when someone is ubiquitously known by their given name and are a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g., Saddam) or when we have "only one biographical article of a person" of that name (e.g., Epatha). So right now, this does fit the latter criterion—BLP doesn't really come into play either way. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Very glad this got settled. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're now unanimous, would it be appropriate to close this per WP:SNOW? -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2015 (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.

What a norwhale looks like[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) 14:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, especially because "narwhal" is pretty badly misspelled. Note that Norwhale is red. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - for obvious reasons Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it was not mispelled it would not be appropriate since we are not Wolfgram Alpha or any other search engine.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ and this is a FAQ question without a questionmark -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. We should look up "norwhale" and see if any reliable sources use this misspelling. SONIC678|Hang out with me! 18:17, 12 July 2015 (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.

Tewksbury ma[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 17#Tewksbury ma

Confederate flag[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 -- closed by User:The Anome I agree with the general consensus below, withdraw my changes that prompted this RfD, and have adopted the suggestion given. -- The Anome (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Flags of the Confederate States of America, where this previously targeted until earlier today. Sure, the "stars and bars" flag is the best known today, but redirecting this term to an article specifically about modern usage is pretty egregious RECENTISM. If we had an article specifically about that flag (not just its modern usage), I'd be completely fine with this term redirecting there as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. BDD (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep· The common use of the term "Confederate flag" to refer to the stars-and-bars thing is at least fifty years old. If you do a Google search for "Confederate flag", you can see that it is quite clearly the one and only meaning in present-day discourse. Finally, we have a hatnote at the top of the redirect target article for those very few uses that might refer to the now little-known official flags of the Confederacy. -- The Anome (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it's the best known; see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But it's much older than 50 years, so redirecting to a "Modern display of" fork is inappropriate. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - without commenting on whether or not there should be a content fork for the battle flag of the army of Tennessee, versus a content fork for the 2015 controversy, the current target is appropriate. Note that the target was only created on July 1 of this year, and describes what is commonly known as the Confederate flag in great detail. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the target article could be renamed and expanded; it's not the only place that flag is described right now. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we're talking about it. It would be more appropriate to expand the section in the original Flags of the CSA article, giving consideration for weight and which of these flags is most recognizable and most likely to be searched. The modern controversy over flying that flag should be a separate article, but there needn't be a separate article on the flag itself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. This has all the most important information and context all in one place. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Swiss flag has never been referred to as "the Confederate flag", though, only as the Swiss flag. It wouldn't belong on a dab page.  Sandstein  19:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the page being discussed is "Confederate flag", not "The Confederate Flag" (though perhaps a redirect for that should be created as well). The flag of Switzerland is still a confederate flag even if it isn't the confederate flag. SStephens13 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the Swiss flag has never been described, in English, as a confederate flag, as in: "confederate flag of Switzerland". It's one possible description of the flag from the perspective of an English speaker, but not a name in actual use even in English, and therefore doesn't belong on a dab page. In German and French, it has been called "Bundesfahne" / "drapeau fédéral", but that translates to "union flag" or "federal flag". Indeed, Switzerland has had a civil war that was pretty much a miniature version of the the US civil war, except without slavery. And the Swiss flag was the flag of the victorious federal, "Union", side, not that of the rebels (which didn't agree on a flag), so the name "confederate flag" conveys pretty much the opposite of what the Swiss flag stands for, historically speaking.  Sandstein  13:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. -SStephens13 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with either, as most people are looking for the battle flag. Rockypedia (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there not a primary topic for the term? If there are many lesser-known flags of confederacies, the solution there would be to have a Confederate flag (disambiguation) page for them. I have seen no evidence that the primary topic is not the flag that is currently being debated in the United States. bd2412 T 20:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But "confederate flag" just means a flag of a confederacy. If the redirect was "the confederate flag", I would agree, and would advocate redirecting to Flags of the Confederate States of America#The "Confederate flag". As it is not, I prefer disambiguation. SStephens13 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think we all agree on that. The problem is that there isn't a standalone article on that flag. There's an article about several flags, including this one, and there's an article about the contemporary significance of the flag. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2015 (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.

B's[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 17#B's

History of Halifax/redirects[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) 14:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to it and its not likely to be searched for. DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah there is no significant history. I would have speedied it but it was created a year ago so I had to bring it here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2015 (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.

Special distinctions of Nauru[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remnants of an old trivia page. It should have been deleted instead of redirected, so let's get this one right now. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as harmless. Created in 2003, but its hits are well below bot noise level (averaging one every three days, roughly). Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's still paltry page views, and those are essentially searches for something we don't have. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I looked into the history expecting to find that "special distinctions" actually meant something; instead I found a wall of trivia. People redirected to the main article aren't going to get that, so I see no purpose in retaining this. We don't have to catch every search. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on above comments and findings. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2015 (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.

Jurassic Park 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 no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete unconfirmed title 27.62.31.241 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the targeted article contains information on the sequels to the fifth film -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No it don't. No mention of Jurassic Park VI nor Jurassic Park 6 in any part of the article. Nevertheless, this is harmless. Without prejudice, tagging as {{R to section}} and amending the above listing, to the unspeakable bounty of human knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Am I being a bit queer, but I was wondering what past sequels would be? A sequel, by definition, comes after not before, so "future" is redundant. Anyway, that's irrelevant for our purposes. Just had an axe to grind. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense because Jurassic Park already has a few sequels. It may have more sequels in the future, hence "future sequels". --BDD (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the target got information about the sixth Jurassic Park film and readers may search the sequel by this title. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target has sourced information about a sequel so this is a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Jurassic World (the 4th film in the Jurassic Park film series) is going to have a sequel, it will be the 5th film in the series. I see no information in the target article for more than one sequel. This redirect is too incorrect at the present time. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically going WP:RFD#D5, @Steel1943:? Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that section uses sequel in the plural, as in "more than one sequel." -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I know what a bloody plural is, Mr. Patronising (smiling)! Future sequel is red. It's still the oxymoron that you can't quite have a past sequel, so that is redundant (or at least a box set) but since these fellows lived in the past and now are projected into the future, we need something like the past historic future tense, which we do not have in English, the nearest we can get for the verb go is "I should have been ought to have been going", we do it all with adjunctives rather than sticking on suffixes like a proper language (Hungarian can do it in one word, for example).
I mean the Jurrasic era was a long time ago, and succeeded by the Modern era or something according to my Boy's Big Book of Dinosaurs and the Museum of Natural History. Since Modern Era now means the middle ages, we are a bit short on terms for the geological eras for digging up dinosaurs. Cretaceous era don't exist either, and what would we do without the rhinocerous? from Ancient Greek Rhino 'nose', and cerous head. (From which we derive Cerebral and unfortunately Celebrity, BRING BACK HANGING I SAY. Kinda Late Latin, not very Greek, really. And the plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although living in any major city is a form of capital punishment to me. I am lucky, I haven't money, but live where I can see trees and grass and flowers, picked some new English roses that I planted last year and gave one to my neighbours. Who wants to live in a city when you can get all this for free? George Orwell's roses are still blooming in the village where he used to live. His essay on it would touch your heart, cos he had witnessed the death of his wife Eileen Blair. Orwell said, who ever plants a walnut, if you plant a walnut, you are planting it for your grandchildren, and who gives a damn about their grandchildren? Well I have to advise Orwell, he is wrong. His roses are blooming in Wallington, Hertfordshire and that is where I kinda grew up. So as he said in A Good Word for the Vicar of Bray. (Vicar of Bray is rather a contemtuous expression, roughly, hypocrite). A rose, he said would last a hundred years, and it has done a good sixty so far. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: This is a picture taken not a very far walk from downtown Toronto, which you may agree is a fairly major city. Though I'll grant that all of my roses are growing on a windowsill in my smallish apartment; still, I enjoy them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration of interest. I went to the inaugural meeting of the Orwell Society in Letchworth at the Spirella, which we don't seem to have for the one in Letchwoth, but they moved out of central London for the second world war and actually they did some secret work on the Bletchley Park stuff, cos it was handy and they had the machines they could turn around and make bombes instead of corsets. Most of the early bombes came from Spirella in Letchworth.[CodeBook 1] but I did as Orwell would want, my feet literally carried me out of that nonsense, as it was just a political debate and nothing to do with Orwell at all. I have the map reading for it, hulye vagyok de nem nagyon hulye. (I'm stupid, but not that stupid.)
  1. ^ Singh, Simon. The Code Book.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Steel1943 makes a pretty good point that no one seems to have addressed. Perhaps editors have seen it and not commented, but I think it would be best to relist to allow for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, per Steel1943, and per BDD whose relist was not exactly neutral, but a good point nonetheless. Precedent shows that should there be a sixth movie in this series, it will not be sequentially numbered, and likely will not be a sequel per se but a retelling within the same story universe. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems quite valid and I had personally searched for this information after seeing the movie. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ivanvector's gentle callout of me was probably justified, but I agree with Steel1943's point enough to make a vote myself. Typically, we'd have a redirect for a future film sequel if there's some sort of discussion of it but delete if it's just someone's speculation, which applies especially to sequels two movies removed from existing ones. Especially given how successful Jurassic World is, I do think it's likely that the franchise will get a sixth film eventually, but until we can say anything about it—even a reliable source saying that it's coming—this is premature. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The section discusses "sequels" in the plural, so the redirect isn't too far out of line. But at the end of the day, it's still a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good search term per Steve Lux, Jr. above. Also a typo for a transposed Jurassic Park IV. – Paine  08:32, 20 July 2015 (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.

👯[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 22:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally targeted cosplay; was redirected by Gorobay (courtesy ping). On desktop and Android this appears as the head of a woman wearing bunny ears; as I understand it the iOS version shows two women dancing in leotards and bunny ears. Emojipedia calls this emoji Woman With Bunny Ears (link shows different appearances). I suggest retargeting to Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, which is the current target of Kemonomimi, which this emoji is supposedly intended to depict. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It sounds like there are legitimately two topics this could refer to. I know we tend to keep Unicode symbols and such as redirects like this, but that makes them essentially just function as Easter eggs. If someone puts, say, a Unicode snowman into the search box, how do we know they want what the symbol represents rather than the symbol itself? Trying to keep this one straight just doesn't feel worth it to me. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I'm of the opinion that Emoji should only be redirected somewhere if there is an obvious target. For some (most?) of them, there is an obvious target, but I don't think that's the case here. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stats are well above bot levels in my opinion: it has been viewed 344 times in the last 90 days. I'm against a disambiguation per WP:DABMENTION (it's not mentioned anywhere). HOWEVER, it is defined at Wiktionary as "woman with bunny ears." I think it should be soft redirected there (wikt:👯), and someone can use that definition to make whatever conclusions they want from it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching back to my original !vote as the soft redirect to Wiktionary idea never caught on. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to the Unicode code block, Playboy bunny, and usagi cosplay; and wiktinoary -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that I can't see these on my Windows 7 desktop means I have no way to decide. The fact I can't see these on my Windows 7 desktop (since I haven't whatever font necessary to be installed) means other readers, perhaps many, can't see them either. (The Playboy bunny is, by the way, a copyright logo.) In short, I don't think that emoji meets WP:TITLE: WP:EMOJI doesn't exist (nor MOS:EMOJI): Perhaps one should.
Technically it can't be part of a font since fonts don't have colours. It's a grapheme that has been just given a fucking space in the Unicode 01 plane. How it is rendered as a glyph is entirely up to your browser and that is not helpful to Wikipedia. One of the great things of Wikipedia is Keep it Simple, Stupid and this is just trying to do fancy bits that are, in my opinion, undesirable. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Seems that there are multiple possible targets that could be reasonably searched by this emoji: why hinder readers by leading them to a search page that may not be helpful by deleting this title? Also, it's worth noting that Bunny girl currently redirects to Playboy Bunny (So, I'm also weak keep for that reason; most sources I have found seen to match this emoji with the term "Women with bunny ears", which some sources say is the Japanese term for "Playboy Bunny".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - Perhaps I'm wrong here but surely no one actually searches this place with an emoji ? ... I personally see no point in it nor do I believe it's useful in the slightest. –Davey2010Talk 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davey2010: Sometimes, these redirects help readers identify a emoji; probably one of the most useful emoji redirects is 🍠 considering that I would have no idea what it is just by looking at it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But see, that's absurd. Who says that's a sweet potato? Maybe that's the official definition, but it could just as easily depict a regular potato, or probably some other tubers as well. And if you know it's the Unicode for a sweet potato, 🍠 doesn't help you. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's actually a "roasted sweet potato," not just a "sweet potato" as the redirect would imply. Is this a problem? Maybe a soft redirect to wikt:🍠 would help clear this up? (thinking aloud here) -- Tavix (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I stand corrected, These - 😂 😭 - both are redirected so it kinda makes sense just to redirect this, I still believe it's pointless but hey ho. –Davey2010Talk 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what we think of as a potato is a sweet potato. (See Bryson, Made in America (book). Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - If there's two topics it could refer to, seems like the most obvious choice. —ajf (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what Steel1943 said, that Bunny girl already redirects to Playboy Bunny, and since my kemonomimi suggestion went nowhere. I don't like the idea of disambiguating emoji: it's not a word that forms the title of several pages, it's a picture that a bunch of people see representing something different. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why treat a picture different than a phrase that a bunch of people would interpret representing something different (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC aside)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDD (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because with words we can say definitely that a target should be included, or not. At bunny (disambiguation), there is a definite list of things that "bunny" might refer to, or as the template says, "articles associated with the title Bunny". Any competent user can say that Howard "Bunny" Colvin should be listed there, and that Elizabeth II should not. With a picture, who's to say that I don't see 👯 a girl who likes baguettes, or 👯 a sprite from Final Fantasy II, or 👯 two chipmunks fighting over a pine cone, or 👯 Her Majesty the Queen? I see this having the potential for very serious edit warring, in the worst case, or just being difficult to maintain. If we can determine a "best" target then that's what we should do, but if they're ambiguous we should really not keep these. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between glyph variation and the misinterpretation of a glyph. This character is either a picture of a woman’s head with bunny ears, or a picture of two dancing women with bunny or cat ears. It is definitely not two chipmunks. Gorobay (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could be two dancing chipmunks. Maybe the artist has never seen one. 🐿
Before this gets too much more off-topic, if we're to agree that this should be disambiguated, might I suggest we create a new class of disambiguation pages? This isn't exactly "pages associated with the title 👯", although it's not far off. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2015 (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.

Windows 12[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned. GZWDer (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Windows 10 is the last version.--Silver Samurai 07:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and misleading/confusing since it's not mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on top what was has already been said there is no guarantee that Microsoft will keep the same naming scheme meaning that even if there is a new OS it could be called something other than 12.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 16:34, 15 July 2015 (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.

African[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 17#African

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_9&oldid=1138580285"