Talk:Rabbit

"Bunny wabbit" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bunny wabbit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25 § Bunny wabbit until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2025

−

This is a misleading as wild rabbits do not naturally prefer carrots over other plants. Carrots are high in sugar, and excessive consumption can be unhealthy. This has led to some owners of domestic rabbits feeding a carrot heavy diet on this false perception.

+

This is misleading as wild rabbits do not naturally prefer carrots over other plants. The misconception has led to some owners of domestic rabbits feeding them carrot-heavy diets. Carrots are high in sugar and excessive consumption can be unhealthy.

2A00:23C8:F11A:7801:8435:B4BC:6FBA:3 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done with minor changes. Day Creature (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"Bnuuy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bnuuy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 31 § Bnuuy until a consensus is reached. UtherSRG (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Rabbits in internet memes

@Myceteae could you clarify what you think is wrong with the section on rabbits in internet meme culture? I agree "Bnuuy" as a meme doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability for an article in and of itself, but the source clearly describes the meme "bnuuy" as "a popular internet slang for 'Bunny'", and I can provide other reliable sources for the claim that rabbits appear in internet memes. (cc @Consarn, who discussed including this content at a related RfD, and @Reconrabbit as the bnuuy expert.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

For context, the disputed content was added with this update and I removed it. I don't have much to add beyond what I wrote at RfD. The line related to bnuuy was:

In internet memes, a rabbit is often called a "bnuuy", a deliberate humorous misspelling of "bunny".

The reference is about an artist named Bnuuy and it includes a trivial mention of the origin of the name from internet slang. This is not sufficient to establish that this piece of slang/meme content is notable relative to the broader subject of rabbits. The other items in the this section also failed to demonstrate relative notability. Encyclopedic content requires more than just being barely verifiable. We don't include every bit of slang or meme content unless there are numerous, high quality, reliable sources that establish is relevance to the subject of the article. As I said at RfD, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources about bnuuy and even a few such sources would not be enough to justify inclusion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The subject "rabbit" as it is presented here is just too broad to warrant inclusion of a single artist who uses a deliberately misspelled version of the name. Not every item related to rabbits needs to be mentioned in this article, only the most culturally prominent. Memes are hard to qualify because we are experiencing them right now. I concur with Myceteae that there isn't enough depth of sourcing about it to include - that's why I mention Bugs Bunny here instead of Miyamoto Usagi, Reader Rabbit or Vib-Ribbon. These examples haven't been around long enough to determine if their cultural impact extends to the whole concept of Rabbit (which I believe it does in the case of Bugs and Watership Down. As a parallel: there is an "Interaction with humans" section on Cat, but it makes no mention of catgirls. -- Reconrabbit 18:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To make another article comparison, Frog contains no mention of Pepe the Frog and related meme content, even though these memes are quite prominent and are extensively documented. I realize we're veering into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory here. (And I'm sure we can find animal articles that do include questionable meme content. That wouldn't change my assessment here.) Rabbit and Cat are both Good Articles and Frog is a Featured Article. These are well written, well organized articles that cover the most important aspects of the animals. "Bnuuy" doesn't come remotely close to the rabbit in Chinese zodiac, the works of Beatrix Potter, the Easter Bunny, or even the rabbits you mention that we exclude from the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting for the record that @Consarn indicated their agreement with removal of this content here in the ongoing parallel WP:RfD discussion now located at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 9#Bnuuy. The RfD thread and prior threads linked there are part of the broader consensus building discussion of this issue. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

no idea who that is not consarn _{(ain't me) (nuh uh)} 17:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I hate to be a killjoy @Consarn but this reply is liable to confuse editors who are unfamiliar with your sparkling wit. Of course, anyone reading this is encouraged to follow the links and see for themselves who said what and in what context. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Fluffle

@Kalicmau, I don't think that an article and a listserv message talking about how someone made up "fluffle" as a term by adding it to Wikipedia are appropriate for including it again. Wikipedia:Neologism makes it clear that Wiktionary has different inclusion criteria for neologisms than does Wikipedia. Obviously this isn't an article called "fluffle", but adding it in gets us back to "citogenesis". -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)