Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 23

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. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Santali_people → Santhal people (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

• Santal → Santhal people (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

• Santals → Santhal_people (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

DELETION of these three redirects. These redirect titles are not appropriate for this article, & two more redirects, are redirecting the page with bearing specific importance on their titles. Sbmurmu09 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They look like legitimate {{R from alternate spelling}}. Why would anyone want to delete them? Keφr 18:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kephir - Google shows it as a normal alternate spelling. Ansh666 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all clearly. The first was the original title and the other two are former redirects to other misnomers. Hence all are plausible search terms and no policy-compliant reasons for deletion have been adduced. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (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.

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 move Bullfrog (disambiguation) to Bullfrog. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bullfrog → Bullfrog (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

A large number (probably over 100) of pages link here, and even more did before I started disambiguating them. Most (though not all) intend American bullfrog. This name should probably point to that article, where a hatnote directs readers to the disambiguation page. That was the status quo until 7 September 2013. Cnilep (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just looked a the ten pages I disambiguated. Seven clearly intended 'American bullfrog', one intended Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Indian bullfrog), and two are not certain (but one of those probably intended American bullfrog). Note, too, that bullfrogs still points to American bullfrog. Whatever we decide, those two redirects should probably go to the same place. Cnilep (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this redirect at the specific request of the reviewer who was reviewing the article American bullfrog for GA status. In light of what is stated above, I think it would be better that the redirect of "Bullfrog" be changed back to "American bullfrog", and in any event, I agree that "Bullfrogs" needs similar treatment to "Bullfrog". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to American bullfrog. The amphibian seems clearly to be the prime use. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are many possible destinations for bullfrog and to say that one is more valid than all the rest combined is quite foolhardy. Bullfrogs on the otherhand, well that makes sense for it to go to the species, which was the only one I saw on the list that could be pluralized. Technical 13 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a point of clarification, wikt:cane toads, African bullfrogs, Banded bull frogs, etc. can also appear in the plural. Cnilep (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that unless this is retargeted, Bullfrog (disambiguation) should be moved there. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The disambiguation page lists 13 species. American_bullfrog has been viewed 13180 times in the last 30 days and 39644 times in the last 90 days whereas Cane_toad has been viewed 22491 times in the last 30 days and 60700 times in the last 90 days. How many readers are looking for the cane toad when they search for "bullfrog", I don't know. —rybec 17:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably impossible to know how many people who search for "bullfrog" mean "American bullfrog", but FWIW this Google search (an admitted flawed, but frequently used, method) might shed some light. A search for {"bullfrog" "Bufo marinus" -Wikipedia} returns "About 52,900 results". Of the first ten pages returned, six refer to both Bufo marinus (the cane toad) and Rana catesbeiana (the American bullfrog), while four suggest that Bufo marinus is sometimes called "bullfrog". A search for {"bullfrog" "Rana catesbeiana" -Wikipedia} returns "about 124,000 results". All ten of the first ten pages say something like "Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)". My very rough estimate is that a small but non-trivial minority of references to "bullfrog" mean something other than Rana catesbeiana. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Croak. Keep. Move Bullfrog (disambiguation) to Bullfrog – Project Dab has a bot that will dab the links quickly. Unless "Bullfrog" has a primary topic, then this is the way to go. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. Bullfrogs (plural) can then redirect to the dab page, Bullfrog. (PS left by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!)

• The text currently at Bullfrog (disambiguation) tells us "bullfrog or bull frog is a common English term to refer to large, aggressive frogs, regardless of species." If true, choosing the North American species as the primary topic may not follow WP:WORLDVIEW. —rybec 01:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Bullfrog (disambiguation) to Bullfrog - while the frog is obviously the primary topic, there is no single article about all frogs called "bullfrog", so I think Paine's suggestion here is appropriate. Ansh666 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move as above. Siuenti (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2013 (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.

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Gay → meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Renominating on behalf of Lesbiangirl123, who gave the following reason for deletion: Wikipedia:Gay should be deleted, and salt protected due to being an orphan. Until there is some consensus on what this page should redirect to, I feel it is logical to delete this page and salt. My reasons are simple: I cannot find any page on English Wikipedia this page is linked to, and I may be wrong, but soft redirects aren't really used. Instead, what its intended redirect now Directly goes to meta. This means this is a waste of space, and I encourage any admin to delete this. (disclosure, I was looking for userboxes when I stumbled upon this) Keφr 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I am neutral. Perhaps WP:LGBT would be a better target (WP:GAY already redirects there). But certainly not userbox pages. There is also a question of any hypothetical historical use. Keφr 12:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was created to clearly offend people, like on meta that it points to. It may be funny to some, but I can't even read half of it without getting disgusted. It has seen no use of what it was intended to serve, it was just an Wikipedia: page created by Fae, or whoever there name is. Obviously, it does not have any notable use at all, and that is more then enough reason to delete it. Maybe redirect to lgbt, but certainly not to meta. I also don't see it to redirect to lgbt, as we already have one that is WP:GAY, and this page has page views 0 to 4 since this page has been up. It wouldn't hurt the project to delete it, as no pages in this website have anything pointed to it other then maybe 5 talk pages. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To offend people? Show me any statement on that page that is supposedly offensive. Just one statement. Please. Keφr 12:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing process Types of vandals sections, I cannot say really. Here is just one...

is statements I have problems with. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what is so disparaging about this paragraph? Which people are supposed to be offended by that? Because certainly not gays or lesbians. Keφr 13:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the title of the page itself to be sufficiently offensive. It is part of seeking to dehumanise a category of society by using schoolyard humour. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more generic? The above is not nearly vague and presumptuous enough. Keφr 13:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially. Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. Any further discussion of this essay is at m:Meta:Requests for deletion. Keφr 15:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Change redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies - That WikiProject page is supposed to be the target for this shortcut, there is even already a shortcut note there at the top of that project page for WP:GAY stating that it is supposed to be the redirect target, and it has been there since at least the end of 2009. That Meta essay was never supposed to be the target for this redirect, I have no idea why it was ever set up like that. Zad68 13:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page names are case-sensitive. Just so you know. So WP:GAY is a shortcut, but WP:Gay is not. But I agree, different letter-case variants of a page title should not usually point to different targets. Simple principle of least astonishment. However, we have to weigh that against any hypothetical historic use of that title, remember. Keφr 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but given this tiny list of links to Wikipedia:Gay I can't come up with a compelling historical reason reason to keep the link as-is. Zad68 13:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is entirely illogical. If you actually look at them, I will give its current use: two Wikipedia: pages (both the rfd), 1 IP address (who was warned about editing it), the rest are these two: User_talk:DBigXray/Archive_2012/March (archive page and fae showing of his newly created Wikipedia:Gay) Saintjimmy777 ( Shoessss user using it as personal attack against editor(although when it was posted in 2007, the page didn't exist yet).) and User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak ( I commented about this page, so it appeared there, so nothing wrong) As such, it can be safely deleted. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Related discussion - For more background on this, please see this related RFD from 2007: WP:GAY → Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles Zad68 13:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Zad68. All that needs to be said has been said here. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. I don't think the Meta page is intended to be offensive. But Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT Studies is still probably a better target. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the above discussion, retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT Studies. I think consensus here is quite clear. Can we speedy-close this? Keφr 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it with fire. Alas, en.wiki is not in a position to get rid of the awful target page, but at least we can stop sending readers in that direction. Retargeting to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies would be OK with me, lacking consensus to simply delete it. bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the old discussion, if nothing else. Ansh666 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. WP:GAY already redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if someone types wp:gay? Do you think it should not point to anything at all? Keφr 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If somebody types WP:gay in the search bar, they'll just end up at WP:GAY anyway. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in the search bar, in a discussion. Keφr 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the entire point of it, it was never used for its purpose, and I think you all for that, as it was just used to incite reactions. I think there is a lack of use, the target use, and studies of it should be deleted. --Lesbiangirl123 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, good point, I have no problem with WP:Gay and WP:GAY pointing to the same place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is along the same vein as the recently deleted Mos:intro. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Change target to the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies in the same fashion as WP:LGBT. A link to the not-very-funny meta 'humor' page is not nearly as important as the wikiproject. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or retarget -- these have almost the same result, since search bar entry of "WP:gay" or "Wikipedia:gay" will go to "WP:GAY" anyway. Consensus seems strong to do one or the other, and I don't think it matters much which. -Pete (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to disambiguation between Wikipedia:Cyberbullying and WP:LGBT. The way this is targeted right now illustrates that someone may be trying to deal with harassment, rather than trying to write articles about queer topics. The cyberbullying essay offers practical advice which the meta essay does not. —rybec 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I don't take issue with the page on meta; it's humurous and has some "truth" in it; but to redirect the general term Gay to this page is not humorous at all and very offensive. WP:Gay could be reserved for a project seriously dedicated to the group…. L.tak (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. It is sensible to have all case variations pointing to the same place, and WP:GAY already redirects there. The overarching consideration is that this makes WP:Gay a plausible and useful search term. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies per The Whispering Wind --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, though I note that deletion would have the same practical effect given the existence of WP:GAY. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies as {{R from other capitalisation}} Technical 13 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  note: {{R caps}} is used only in mainspace. Besides, while "lgbt" would be a caps mod, the word "GAY" is not in the suggested title. :) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:39, 30 September 2013 (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.

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 Berber, Sudan. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Barbar, Sudan → Barbar (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. This redirect seems to be backwards: a disambiguated title to a disambiguation page which has nothing related to the redirect title :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Berber, Sudan. The German page is at Barbar but says Berber is an alternative spelling, and Google results seem to be mixed between the two spellings. TimBentley (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Berber, Sudan. Plausible search term. Nice work by TimBentley. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2013 (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.