Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2015.

Russia in World War one[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. This should be an article, but at Russia in World War I. Deryck C. 10:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big honking WP:REDLINK. There's plenty of discussion of Russia at the target article, but this redirect gives the impression of an article of the very common "Country in War" type. In effect, a reader would have to assemble that article in his or her own head. There's history we could perhaps revive and move to Russia in World War I, but it might be best to start over. (Content on this topic might also be expected at Military history of the Russian Empire#World War I, but it's nothing but hatnotes.) --BDD (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 16:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it appears that the original article was a copyright violation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: rename this redirect to Russia in World War I, do not delete this redirect, and don't remove any details. 333-blue 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment. What's the point of renaming it? It would be equally unlikely. I can think of Russian Revolution of 1918 and Russian Revolution of 1919 and so on, which are perhaps more likely. Perhaps ask over at WP:MILHIST what they think the best target should be. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this topic merits its own page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 12 October 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.

Man from Heaven[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 all per WP:RFD#D2. I am persuaded by the argument that these are ambiguous terms and there is no probability that a searcher on these terms would be looking for the present target. This is without prejudice to converting to a disamb page by bold editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These could refer to various figures in history and mythology. They're not particularly common terms for Jesus. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These terms could refer to all kinds of things. "Man from the Sky" or "man from heaven" could refer to this book, this 1957 film, or any number of sky deities. Wikipedia policy is clear that a redirect should be deleted if the "redirect might cause confusion" or if a redirect is from an "obscure synonym for an article name" (see WP:R#DELETE). These redirects are both confusing and involve obscure synonyms. Therefore, they should be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:54, 11 October 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.

Angeles City[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. Since this discussion was initiated as a response to WP:BOLD action, the lack of consensus means we'll revert to the status quo that existed up until then (cf. WP:BRD), so both redirects will be retargeted back to Angeles, Philippines. I note that there are still many incoming links to Angeles City intended for the Philippine city, though there are none to City of Angeles. Since there really wasn't positive consensus for the initial proposal, this may be worth revisiting in a few months or so. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget back to Angeles, Philippines where it has pointed for the last three years until yesterday. The city in the Philippines isn't merely the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by usage, but in fact the only thing on Wikipedia which can be referred to by this name: neither Los Angeles nor any other item on the Angeles dab page is ever called "Angeles City". Any residual confusion is easily handled by a hatnote on Angeles, Philippines. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC) (formerly 58.176.246.42)[reply]

  • Keep. Retarget to the disambiguation page at Angeles. I have started pointing those links to the article on the Philippine city in many articles anyway. If WP:MOSPHIL isn't followed, we might as well move all articles on Philippine cities to the format <X City> following some editors preference here.--RioHondo (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOSPHIL has nothing to do with it; no one is suggesting that Angeles, Philippines be moved. (Also, RFD custom is that if you prefer the current target and don't want it to change, i.e. Angeles, you should write your !vote as "Keep".). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. There's just way too many Angeles City redirects for Angeles, Philippines that people and editors are forgetting how the article is titled and where the article really is. With Angeles City being a dab page, as it should be, editors would be made to realize or be told to target their links properly by the bot when they do.--RioHondo (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • people and editors are forgetting how the article is titled and where the article really is. With Angeles City being a dab page, as it should be, editors would be made to realize or be told to target their links properly by the bot when they do — the primary purpose of a redirect is to guide readers to the content they're trying to find, not to help bots generate messages to editors about Wikiproject guidelines. You can always write another bot to enforce your project guidelines & warn editors who link Angeles City. But the name Angeles City is a valid & unambiguous alternative way of referring to the Philippine city which can be found in countless real-world WP:RS, and it is not wrong for readers to type it into the search box, nor do they gain anything by having an extra unnecessary step added to their navigation. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Guiding readers to the content they're trying to find" is I thought the work of a dab page though. Anyway, how does a bot enforcer of AT guidelines work?--RioHondo (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Guiding readers to the content they are trying to find is also the purpose of redirects. What we have to decide is whether this helps or hinders.
  • Comment adding City of Angeles to this nomination since the same rationale applies and its target was also recently changed at the same time as Angeles City. (Granted, City of Angeles could a be a typo for City of Angels, but again that case can be handled by a hatnote on Angeles, Philippines.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hinders. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really quite right, I'm well aware that "Los" is the Spanish masculine plural for "The", but then we would just end up with Angeles which helps nobody. which would be absurd. And Los Angeles is actually not even called that officially but as Spanish: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula (in English, "town of our lady the Queen of Angels of the Porcupines or something like that") as I imagine you well know, ut we do not have El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula. That would be even more foxy. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar we do actually have El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula. Why anyone would type that instead of writing L.A. is completely beyond me. But then, I grew up in Stevenage, and nothing much good came out of there except lots of surface-to-air missiles and Lewis Hamilton. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here's a suggesting throwing it out, we have Los Alamos for the name of the place which to my surprise is a DAB, I would have thought the one in Nevada would have been WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but there we go. Alamo redirects to Battle of the Alamo (been there, done that) and Alamos is a WP:TWODABS that really doesn't need to exist, could just be hatnoted. All Mexican Spanish of course, I don't think anyone is in doubt over that. Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:47, 11 October 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.

Yahoo.om[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. Deryck C. 10:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a plausible typo for Yahoo.com. However. the actual yahoo.om website is not owned by Yahoo. Rather it's some domain parking site with pop-up ads that ask you to install some software (probably malware). See also earlier RFD on CNNtürk.com for a similar situation (consensus to delete plausible typos of real-world domain name due to potential for harm). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 12:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to confusion and possible security concerns. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I don't get the "security concerns" argument, that's nowhere in our "reasons for delete", and I can see no consensus for that argument at the earlier discussion for #CNNtürk.com, immediately below. Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
copying my reply below @Si Trew My reason is similar to WP:RFD#DELETE No.4 "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam". There's a risk that these domain parking practices is monetized through ads and promos at best or malware at worst. --Lenticel (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I have done the reverse by copying my D2 vote to the one below! Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: your jargon has got away from me, I think you're saying that if someone clicks through Yahoo.om then the website owners get amoney from serving ads. That may be the case. I don't see how any Wikimedia project, by mentioning it, has any influence on that – and in fact it does not mention it. There must be tens of thousands of similar domain parking sites bringing in a steady trickle, but I don't think of itself that is any concern of Wikipedia. A really good one that made a few hundred thousand dollars would be notable, and in that case we should and probably would have an RS article on it. Personally I enjoy a good scam, in the way I enjoy a cryptic crossword puzzle, but this one is way too simple for me to enjoy. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, we're talking in two different Rfd's. Please see my reasons in CNNtürk.com's rfd. --Lenticel (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, at least they are next to each other! We could even combine the listings... Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 13 October 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.

CNNTürk.com[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 incorrect as harmful. Deryck C. 10:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other capitalisation of previously-deleted redirect. Though this is a plausible typo for CNNturk.com (the actual website, no diacritics), consensus at the last RFD was that retaining the redirect could cause potential harm, since the real world cnntürk.com is a shady domain parking site. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? "Security concerns" is not one of the deletion criteria. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew My reason is similar to WP:RFD#DELETE No.4 "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam". There's a risk that these domain parking practices is monetized through ads and promos at best or malware at worst. --Lenticel (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: Right, I see your point, but wouldn't it then do the opposite, that it directs people away from those spam sites? On the other hand, WP:RFD#D2 confusing if it is not mentioned at the target.
I can see that if the lurking site/phishing site were of itself notable e.g. particularly successful then we should have it on WP, but not otherwise. It is not a threat to the security of the Wikimedia servers (and I presume you did not mean to imply that it might be). Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more of our readers' security. If they see a shady website and then was able to find an article in Wikipedia by plugging it in the Wiki's search bar then they might assume that the shady site was a legitimate website. --Lenticel (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if they plug in Cocaine or Murder and find an article on it then they assume that is legitimate? That is arguing against WP:NEUTRAL and WP:RNEUTRAL. But they don't find an article, they find an R to a different article that doesn't mention it, so these can go via D2. But we do have articles on notable scams, and even Category:Scams, though it is too lightly populated really (Ponzi scheme is not a member, for example). Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting yours and mine a bit) That being said I can warm to your point, because often I don't realise I have gone through a redirect (that's the point) and so could then end up thinking it was legit because the target is legit and I hadn't noticed I had gone through the redirect... is that roughly your argument? Because you just said "if it comes up in the search bar", not "if someone actually clicked through to the target".
But because the only mention of the R itself is in small print at the top of the article, it's easy to miss, especially for an {{R to section}}. I think you have a case, then... not a very strong one, but my counter-argument essentially boils down to "people should be more skeptical". Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cnntürk.com also links there, I've add it to the nom, @210.6.254.106: hope that's OK with you, else remove it. It was not at the previous discussion (presumably just missed cos it's not new.) Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I missed that one (for values of "missed" meaning "too lazy to check if it was there"). Sorry not to reply sooner as pings don't work for anons. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Not mentioned at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Enumerating, , , , , and are all red at Turkish Wikipedia, the article being at TR:CNN Türk. Here at EN:WP, cnnturk.tr, cnntürk.tr, CNNTurk.tr and CNNTürk.tr are also red (and their counterparts at TR:WP). Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. Domain names to parked websites are harmful and this is not something we should be promoting. -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 17 October 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.

List of islands of San Francisco Bay[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 by default. No action otherwise has been presented. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

target pages fixed with new link Compfreak7 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Compfreak7: so what are you suggesting we do with this? Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As WilyD would say, "directs readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been advanced for deletion." --BDD (talk) 14:57, 17 October 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.

Bunny[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 to retarget. Views are split on this one and, in addition, I see no net persuasive arguments that the prime usage is related to domestic bunnies, erm, rabbits! Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Domestic rabbit. The Rabbit article, to which this redirect presently goes, is about the entire family of rabbits, including rare species that are not even in the same genus. The child-speak "bunny" is pretty much exclusively applied to domesticated rabbits, and use of it to refer to other species would be seen as extremely silly, exactly like referring to panthers and cheetahs as "kitties", or wolves and foxes as "doggies". After the retarget, the bunny-related hatnote atop Rabbit should be moved to Domestic rabbit, and the Bunny (disambiguation) page adjusted. I think this odd redirect is the result of the Rabbit article formerly being more specific (in 2012 it was proposed for merger with Domestic rabbit, but it has obviously been redeveloped entirely, as a much more general article; such a merger would not be possible today.) PS: If there's strong evidence that "bunny" is also used to refer to wild rabbits, the redirect target could be European rabbit, the wild species from which the domestic rabbit was developed. I'm very skeptical this would be reasonable (I don't see any evidence of usage of "bunny" to refer to wild animals, other than obviously, self-consciously goofy cases like in Facebook meme-GIFs); but it would be faintly preferable to having the redir go to Rabbit, which is almost as bad as having it go to Leporidae.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's odd. I have no idea why this shold go to Rabbit] and even if it did it should go to Rabbit (disambiguation). Delete it then, I can.t see the point of taking it through the R at Domestic rabbit (we don't have Wild rabbit, althiough they are very tasty, and rabbitting is a popular hobby in some parts of the countryside). Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to domestic rabbit per nom. I've definitely heard rabbiting referred to here as "bunny hunting", and frequently enough, but I see it as a colloquialism or local flavour, not an encyclopedic relationship. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to domestic rabbit per nom. --Rubbish computer 15:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, "bunny" is child speak for a rabbit. That's going to hold true whether the rabbit is in a cage or hopping around in the wild. The Tale of Peter Rabbit says the publisher referred to the book (about a non-domesticated rabbit) as a "bunny book". Benjamin Bunny and Bugs Bunny aren't domesticated. If we hear "bunny" referring most often to domesticated rabbits, it's surely because those are the rabbits we have the most contact with. But dictionaries like Wiktionary, Dictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster all define the term as a synonym for rabbit generally. OED calls it a "pet name for a rabbit", though of course a pet name does not mean (necessarily) a name applied to pets. --BDD (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that's pretty much exactly what it means. Given the abundance of domesticated rabbits, their docility, and their relative freedom from pathogens, I'm skeptical that any significant number of people capture wild rabbits, keep them as pets, and call them "bunny". Fictional characters are not relevant; Bugs Bunny, etc., are not domesticated rabbits, or wild rabbits, or any kind of rabbits, they're anthropomorphic fantasies. Finally, highly compressed dictionary definitions, which expect people to read between the lines in a common-sense way, are never good sources to interpret with biblical precision, as they tend strongly to gloss over distinctions that native speakers understand intuitively. We do not call baby wolves "puppies" or baby tigers "kittens", and dictionaries do not need to explain this to us. Likewise, they do not need to explain to us that people don't go around pointing at wild rabbits in the forest glade and say "bunny" unless they're small children still learning distinctions, or they're being very silly, like friends of mine who refer to tigers at the zoo as "big kitties".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "wolf puppy" and "tiger kitten" are attested. The former is used at Wolves as pets and working animals, though search results for the latter get cluttered with references to specific domestic cats named "Tiger". My dictionary definitions may not be a whole lot to go by, but so far I've only seen personal opinions offered in support of the proposal. Can you demonstrate that that distinction is observed in reliable sources, or that authoritative sources define "bunny" as exclusive to domesticated rabits? --BDD (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything imaginable is attested somewhere. This sort of this is not attested frequently enough in reliable sources that we need to care about it. The very point is that other reliable sources like dictionaries and paper encyclopedias do not treat them as such. I've already addressed this in the the WP:DICDEF related comments below: Redirects exist to get people to what they are probably looking for, not to the broadest conceivable interpretation attested somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Bunny" is an affectionate, emotionally positive term for a rabbit, used in many different contexts. It's even more than mere "child speak" since you see it all over the place. As stated above, Bugs Bunny, for once, is neither anyone's pet nor polite, domesticated ("Ain't I a stinker?") and happens to be a character popular among adults as well as children. Referring to a wild rabbit as a 'bunny' is as natural a thing as referring to wild birds that one happens to feel some kind of affection for (suppose you're feeding them some excess bread crusts on a park bench) as 'birdies', say. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already addressed most of this in previous comment. We need to keep in mind WP:DICDEF, and what redirects are actually for. It's not our "job" to provide a redirect to the broadest possible interpretation of a term that's ever been recorded, but to the article people are probably looking for, which in this case is obviously Domestic rabbit, not the article on the entire concept of the rabbit biological family, including animals virtually no one has ever seen but some specialist zoologists. "Birdie" is a diminutive of "bird"; "bunny" is not a diminutive of "rabbit", but Colonial-era rural jargon for "little-tail", and originally applied only to baby rabbits (i.e. domestic ones; the wild ones hide their young in burrows and we usually do not encounter them). While usage has broadened some, all one has to do is look at Easter marketing, the primary reinforcer of this word, and you'll see that about 99% of the time it refers to white or particolored, domestic rabbits, not grey-and-brown, agouti-coated wild ones. Same goes for pretty much all other uses tied to a visual image for evidence, e.g. bunny greeting cards, bunny halloween costumes, etc. Clear demo of the point: Google Images search for "bunny" – note that only a tiny fraction of the results have natural coloration, and of these only a small fraction are likely to actually be non-domestic rabbits (the domestics also come in natural coloration, not just the fancy coat types).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @SMcCandlish: states that the term is "emotionally positive". While I think that is true, it would then violate WP:NEUTRAL, wouldn't it? That of course does not apply to redirects, but do we have something like {{R to neutral}}? I'm not arguing this particular case but in general... when we decide something should be kept via WP:RNEUTRAL. I'll take to the talk page... Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need, I found {{R from non-neutral name}}. I'd still like {{R to neutral}} as an redirect that (and {{R to neutral name}}) and of course could just create them, but would like consensus first. Wilco to talk. Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) CoffeeWithMarkets, not me, used "emotionally positive", but I think we can agree that the term generally is seen as a positive one (aside from some slang uses). WP:NEUTRAL isn't central to the matter, but is involved a little bit. I've detailed this below. PS: As for rcat redirs: It's standard operating procedure to have the "R to not-x" version of an "R from x" (or vice versa) template or template shortcut exist as an alternative name for the real rcat template, so I just created them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional NPoV and consistency rationales: I did not initially include every salient rationale when opening this RfD, which is about whether the redirect Bunny should go to the general article on all species of animals classified as rabbits, at Rabbit, or instead go to Domestic rabbit, the variety people almost always mean when they use or think about the word "bunny", and which is almost always what is represented in imagery associated with this word, both current and historical (e.g. Victorian-era Easter cards). Since SimonTrew raises the matter, yes, there is a WP:NPOV rationale for it as well, which points out an additional obvious consistency one, too. If the redir remains pointing to the wild animal, it actually should have {{R from non-neutral name}} on it, since wild rabbits are widely regarded as pest animals by millions of farmers, gardeners, horticulturists, and groundskeepers; and "bunny" is not usually applied to wild rabbits anyway. Using the word this way on WP is two different kinds of PoV problem at once. If the redir is retargeted to Domestic rabbit where it belongs, it does not need such an rcat template, since there is no class of people with millions of members who have a negative view of meat-and-fur-farmed or pet domestic rabbits being contradicted by a cutesy name for the animals, and we would not be violating the principle of least astonishment by using the word in an unexpected way, pushing a "wild animals are cute and cuddly" viewpoint out of nowhere. Seriously, if we're going to keep redirecting Bunny to Rabbit, by the same reasoning we should redir Doggy and Puppy to Canine, and then redir Kitten and change the top entry at the Kitty disambiguation page to point to Feline; since that would obviously be ridiculous, and these of course go to the domesticated animal articles Dog and Cat, respectively, then WP:COMMONSENSE tells us to treat "bunny" the same as those other diminutives, and redir it to the relevant domesticated animal. Note that, similarly, the primary meaning at the disambiguation page Horsey is "Horse, in baby-talk"; this goes to the domestic species, not to Wild horse nor more broadly to Equine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD and Coffee. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 18:30, 19 October 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.

Double u eye eye[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 with overwhelming consensus. Deryck C. 10:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect sst✈ 02:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have never heard the Wii pronounced in that way and even if someone did hear it mispronounced in this manner I doubt that they would believe that this was the spelling.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For if not, let's spell out every acronym as eye dialect. For pronunciation, there is IPA in the lede of the target and it does not mention this as an alternative. For orthography, we are WP:NOTGUIDE, in particular not a spelling guide. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This redirect just isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wii-diculous. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even a self-consistent phonetic approach (as might be "double-you eye eye", but we'd deleted that for implausibility, too).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:02, 14 October 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.

David Schweizer[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. The consensus shows that until an article is written about the theater director, this is more helpful as a(n) {{R from misspelling}}. An article can simply be written over the redirect. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. Although it's possible that this could be a typo, there is a well-known theater director with the name of David Schweizer. [1][2] Delete redirect per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a valid typo, per WP:R#KEEP number 2. Alternatively if the theatre director is notable then create a stub and hatnote between the two. GiantSnowman 07:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman. --Rubbish computer 12:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, though some might get a WP:SURPRISE. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 13 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_11&oldid=1037881445"