Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2021.

Buttons for Eyes[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Is not a nickname by which this book is referred to, nor was it a draft title. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no references to the book when using this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2021 (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.

Buttons for Eyes (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Buttons for Eyes (film)

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary all-caps redirect. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unnecessary ≠ should be deleted. While at first the redirect looks useless, it has received a good amount of views. It's helpful, it's unambiguous, so why delete? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly weak keep per J947. To add on to that point, although I'm not sure how common that error is, someone might use the ⇪ Caps Lock key and forget to turn it off. Regards, SONIC678 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. It's harmless, unambiguous and used so deleting it will be harmful and bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and Thryduulf. Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. In addition the original theatrical release posters had the name printed in block capitals. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2021 (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.

Lindi Cistia Prabha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Lindi Cistia Prabha

Quitter (social network)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 6#Quitter (social network)

Sky High Marketing Corporation[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) 16:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, my guess is that most readers searching for this term would not be satisfied with the information at the target. Deleting to allow for internal search results and to encourage article creation seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 19 February 2021 (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.

Voting in broward county[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 to Broward County, Florida#Law, government, and politics. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a random county in florida to the main article on voting. The page started out as an unsourced article that was basically a lecture/advert/instructions telling people how important it was to vote because Obama only just got enough votes to win, which was redirected to the article on voting 3 minutes after being created rather than being deleted. This does not seem to be a plausible search term - it only got 5 page views in the last year. If this is kept it might be better targeting something like Broward County, Florida#Law, government, and politics. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2021 (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.

Electrical college[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect currently points to Electoral college with the rationale that it is a plausible misspelling. Looking at the page views it does seem to get a spike of views every 4 years indicating that some people are coming across this as a typo, but I'm not convinced that it's the only reason people are coming across this redirect. In the page history there have been multiple attempts to retarget this to Much Apu About Nothing, as a Simpsons reference. Doing a google search for the phrase myself seems to indicate that the primary usage of this phrase relates to Vocational education or Further education, as in the kind of college you would go to to learn how to become an electrician. In a search on Wikipedia the main results that turn up are specialist electrical engineering universities, e.g. College of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering, and results relating to Electrical engineering and the Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree. I'm not sure what the best use of this redirect is, Keep as is, Retarget or Delete to allow for uninhibited search results. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Again - You just said it yourself that it gets a spike every four years which indicates that it is fixing a typo problem, a situation that is made worse with mobile phones and auto-correct. If you think it needs a disambiguation page go right ahead and make one, but bouncing them to a search page is just making the user experience worse as Wikipedia couldn't search its way out of a paper bag, especially with misspellings.Sturmovik (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or disambiguate. My first thought is that it means vocational training to become an electrician. But a misspelling of Electoral college may be a more common usage. Searching finds there is also a division of Engineers Australia by the same name], but it isn't mentioned in our article on that organization. I drafted a dab at Electrical college. If we use it, it is more of a navigation ad than a valid dab page, so it would be a case of WP:IAR. I did not include the Homer Simpson meme since that is not mentioned in Much Apu About Nothing and is just a manifestation of the misspelling. MB 00:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search turns up a huge number of college courses. Allow uninhibited search rather then point to a silly target. Narky Blert (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two letters is an implausible typo. I would not be opposed to a redirect called Electiral college as it is easy to switch the i's and o's, but this one seems to be too implausible to merit keeping. Aasim (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Redirect: "Did you mean College for electricians?"Algr (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Autocorrect notwithstanding, I think the spike with presidential elections is a bit of a self-fulfilled prophecy- yes this redirect may be helping some users get to Electoral College as intended, but if this redirect didn't exist, other more plausible paths to get there would come up in search suggestions instead, and this redirect is hindering those wishing to see search results on education for electricians by using this broad search term. I would support dabifying/set indexifying if someone wants to undertake that (could happen post-deletion as well). Mdewman6 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at target "Electoral" is quite hard to spell. Therefore, it is a plausible search term. The nom themselves said: it gets a spike of views every four years Implicit in that comment is "It is useful." Also, the much lesser-used "College for electricians" could easily be covered at Electrician#Training. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:17, 24 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Notability (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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this redirect notable? JsfasdF252 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this a joke nomination? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked this question for a few reasons:
      • The nomination refers to the notability of this redirect, when that is not an established term.
      • The nominator created the redirect.
      • The nominator re-enabled the redirect to still work after it was nominated for deletion.
    • So JsfasdF252, I'm confused. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability isn't used as a factor in determining whether redirects should be kept or deleted, and the concept of Notability isn't mentioned at all in the target section. This does get some page views, I assume because it was added to Template:Notability guide with thousands of transclusions, but there's no policy I could find on what "Notability of redirects" actually means. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only relevant mention I can find is in the lead of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes - "But there are significant differences between AfD and RfD, chiefly that AfD debates are often focused on whether the topic is notable, whereas there is no standard or requirement for notability of redirects.", but I'm not sure that is a great target as while notability is not directly relevant to redirects, the notability of the target and/or possible future targets can be relevant. I think there is probably scope for something explaining this, but I'm not sure where would be best for it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I think that what you're talking about (and I apologise if I misunderstood) is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e. that ambiguous redirects should target the most notable topic. I don't think that's really notability of redirects though, if I came across "notability (redirects)" I'd expect to end up somewhere discussing inclusion criteria for redirects, e.g. minimum usage in reliable sources. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • PRIMARYTOPIC is one aspect, although not the main one I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of WP:REDLINK, where the target being notable or not notable will influence whether a redirect is seen as desirable, although that is also not the only one. You are correct that these are not about the notability of the redirect but are cases where notability and redirects intersect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes, which speaks to the topic, though I share J947's confusion at the situation. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I share J947's confusion as well, but evaluating the redirect on its own terms despite that, I don't see an appropriate target given that we notability is not a standard by which redirects are evaluated, and the retarget suggestion proposed by BDD is likely to further confuse anyone under the impression that notability applies to redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW this discussion reminded me of Andorran Navy (RfD), where we also retargeted a term to a place that says "it doesn't exist". Whether this is more or less desirable outside of mainspace, I leave to others to judge. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (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.

British variant[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can refer to Variant of Concern 202012/01. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Variant of Concern 202012/01, in my searches every result in the first 5 pages was related to the coronavirus strain, so at the moment it is the clear primary meaning of the phrase. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The long-term meaning of a language variant will persist beyond the current pandemic, as will the existence of any species variants or other things that may vary in a British way. BD2412 T 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per BD2412. Outside of the virus and language uses I'm seeing primarily hits related to military medals/military hardware and pre-Roman culture. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Variant of Concern 202012/01; don't disambiguate. This redirect had 15 hits in all of 2020, versus 41 in the past month when the U.K. COVID variant has been in the news. It was not likely useful as a redirect to British English (which includes the word "variant" zero times) but is pretty clearly a useful search term for the virus. As for other things that might be British variants of things: disambiguation pages aren't for search results, we have a search engine for that. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTNEWS. I think it's bad policy to retarget redirects to the subject "in the news" at the moment. BD2412 T 18:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I usually would agree with you and I originally wrote basically that same thing, but then I looked at the pageviews. Nobody has ever really used this as a search term for British English or for anything else, suggesting it's not useful as a redirect to any of those other topics. But plenty have used it to look for information on the virus mutation, which suggests it's a primary topic for this search term. If it turns out to be a blip because the virus is in the news right now, it doesn't really matter since the redirect wasn't really being used otherwise. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per BD2412. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Too vague to make anything a primary topic. Nardog (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate now as British variant (a redirect) may refer to :
Further suggestions would be helpful -- Rfassbind – talk 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Variant of Concern 202012/01. I did a search of "British variant" in books only, which misses anything COVID related and saw the term used for a variety of things from language/spelling, versions of aircraft, economic theory, Christian values, "British variant of psychedelia", and so on. If this discussion was occurring last year, I would say delete as too vague (besides in the hatnote, variant isn't even mentioned in British English). Now, the COVID article is clearly what the vast majority of readers would be looking for. MB 03:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation after the first relist. There is agreement that the Variant of Concern is at least one of the likely meanings and the current redirect is not appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are some less important things that arise in a WP search, such as Variant (magazine), Oh_Hell#British_variant, British Chess Variants Society, Ikara_(missile)#British_variant_differences, etc. but these are more of a stretch for reference to a dab page. Perhaps we can start with hatnotes between the language topic and the virus topic, regardless of which target is chosen here. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:RFP[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. This is a bold one, and I spent a while seeking out opinions on it, because it's a long-standing redirect with nontrivial existing use, but I think ultimately it's hard to justify where this goes now.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is colloquially known as WP:RFPP, not WP:RFP. Even in places where RFPP makes for too long an acronym, like the Twinkle drop-down menus, it's represented as RPP. Meanwhile, while Wikipedia:Requests for permissions is primarily known as WP:PERM, there's significant pre-existing use of RFP to refer to it -- specifically, the subpages all have both PERM and RFP as redirects, such as WP:RFP/NPR (to apply for new page reviewer) and WP:RFP/PCR (to apply for pending changes reviewer).

RFP-for-RFPP is a holdover from before user rights as we currently understand them exist. It wasn't updated at the time, and so we've had several years of ambiguous acronyms. I think in the end the solution here is a retargeting. The pre-existing links can be fixed via bots/AWB, and I wouldn't be shocked if a significant proportion of them intended to link PERM as is. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at it's current target. This was discussed last July and I don't see how anything has changed since then. Although the proposed target would make more sense this redirect has been linking to it's current target since 2004 and has over 1500 incoming links. Changing it now would result in significant disruption and confusion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the prior discussion and felt it wasn't covering the matters brought up in my personal discussions with people on the redirect, notably that RFP-for-PERM has significantly more current use and that RFP-for-RFPP can be incorporated as an AWB fix. (1500 actually strikes me as quite low for a seventeen-year-old projectspace redirect.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 86. the last discussion and the first discussion. Nothing changed in the 12 years between the first and second nominations, and (unsurprisingly) nothing has changed in the 7 months since then. The nominator misses that not all uses are linked, new ones will likely be created (causing confusion), there needs to be a very good reason to edit old comments and archives (and this is not such a reason) and finally that links/references in edit summaries cannot be changed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked extensively on all the view-500 pages of the current WhatLinksHere and find it extremely unlikely that new links intended for WP:RFPP will be created; the overwhelming majority of the links are well over a decade old. "Not all uses are linked" is, while valid, impacted by the fact many unlinked uses will be close to linked uses. I would not have brought something like this to RfD if I hadn't seriously reviewed all the evidence for keeping the situation how it is and found it wanting; as it stands, the confusion potential is overwhelmingly from having RFP redirect to RFPP rather than PERM, because RFP is also and far more prominently used for PERM. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(There are bits of the guidelines which I loathe with a passion, notably WP:TITLECASE; but it isn't worth the effort of even thinking of suggesting changes. Like it or not, they're set in stone.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I literally don't see what these others are getting at. WP:RfP already redirects to permissions. And besides, we could just include a hatnote at the permissions page: "WP:RFP redirects here. To request page protection, go here." 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, thanks for catching that -- that was the thing I forgot to mention. Not only does RFP/whatever redirect to permissions, RfP redirects to permissions. Every single thing around this for approximately the past decade has redirected to permissions except RFP proper. The confusion is not in the change. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I'm leaning mostly towards Disambiguate (like WP:IA) since there is no real WP:Primary topic in this case. If there is, then the difference is very small. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: WP:RFP is too ambiguous to mean anything specific. Aasim (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ambiguity is common and normally harmless for shortcut redirects - just think how theoretically ambiguous all the single letter shortcuts are for example. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: could have multiple meanings, request for protection and request for permissions, RFP is ambiguous. User3749 (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:32, 19 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:PROSESIZE[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 to Wikipedia:Prosesize. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROSESIZE redirects to User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, not to Wikipedia:Prosesize. I think it should be retargeted to Wikipedia:Prosesize because it is a rewrite of Dr pda's user script and it would mean that different caps does not lead to different places. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retargeting: Makes more sense for a Wikipedia namespace redirect to remain in the Wikipedia namespace. Doesn't always have to be the case of course, but here it sounds like the most sensible idea. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, it makes no sense that the alternate capitalisations should go to different places. Retarget to the documentation page which is likely to be far more useful for people searching for the script. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I was just commenting on a talk page the other day that this target needed corrected. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget for the same reasons as others above. ―NK1406 18:20, 21 February 2021 (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.

Environmentally less friendly[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or delete: The phrase "environmentally less friendly" doesn't appear on the page. Is there another page this could be retargeted to? DesertPipeline (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: The redirect Environmentally least friendly was added to this RfD at 06:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC) by DesertPipeline (talk). Rationale and proposed action: Same as for first redirect. The heading of this section has not been changed to avoid breaking link targets.
  • Weak retarget to Anti-environmentalism, which was the most relevant page I could find. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that could work, but it's definitely a bit of a stretch. Let's see if anyone else knows of any better targets. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just keep as {{R from antonym}}? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R from antonym}}. Nobody is going to be surprised to arrive at that target, the concept is covered there (even if not in these exact words) and, afaict, isn't covered anywhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops... didn't even realise that was a thing, sorry :) Also, if it's covered there, perhaps we should add an anchor to wherever that is so that the redirect takes the reader to the relevant part of the page immediately? DesertPipeline (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Although looking at the page, I can't actually see anything related to a topic of "environmentally less friendly" myself... maybe I'm just being a bit blind here? :) DesertPipeline (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the value here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so {{R from antonym}} should only be used on likely search terms and where the result is helpful to readers. It's not even clear to me that this is necessarily an antonym. Given that these are all subjective terms, something could be environmentally friendly, but still less environmentally friendly than something else. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as {{R from antonym}} per Thryduulf. While not a strict antonym, and of questionable utility as a search term, anyone searching for this will at least be led to content regarding what is environmentally friendly. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene* Note to closer: Comments above this line were added before the redirect Environmentally least friendly was included in this RfD. Discretion is advised regarding applying above comments to both redirects, and relisting should be considered if deemed necessary. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is also Environmentally least friendly that targets the same page. I didn't add it because it may be too late to add it to the discussion, but this redirect should probably be treated the same way. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be fine, it's only been a day since this discussion started :) Also, they're fairly similar, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's more of a strict antonym, but gets even fewer page views and also seems of limited reader utility. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2021 (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.

Draft:Pennis[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While redirects from the draftspace to the articlespace resulting from moves sometimes have value, this was specifically created as a redirect from the draftspace directly to the articlespace. Not a rationale search term in this namespace, and there's no non-redirect page history. Possible WP:G5 candidate - created by a sock whose master was globally locked. However, the block log suggests that the master is not (and apparently never has been?) locally blocked, so I'm not sure if that affects G5. Hog Farm Talk 07:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly G5 or G3 Misspelled, useless redirect from draft space created by a sockpuppeteering vandal. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've G5'd it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:21, 21 February 2021 (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.

GVCL[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Is apparently an in-game radio station, but searches indication that a company that appears to issue stock, an obscure United States Merchant Marine ship, and a theorized protein. There doesn't seem to be any content for GVCL on enwiki, and the company looks to be an obscure penny stock, so I think deletion is best here. Hog Farm Talk 06:45, 19 February 2021 (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.

Not Even Doom Music[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Not Even Doom Music

Child Welfare[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 to Child protection (which equates to a keep for Child welfare) - These articles are a rather variable and somewhat overlapping, and in various states of quality. The rough consensus is that this is the primary topic, and even if it isn't, it's hatnoted to the disambiguation page and elsewhere. This should not be taken as a consensus against creating a specific separate article, probably at Child welfare, but rather as the best option given currently existing pages. ~ mazca talk 23:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Child welfare and Child Welfare should probably have the same target. Note that there is a journal Child Welfare published by the Child Welfare League of America (which is listed in that article). Child Welfare Services should also be considered since it is closely related and currently redirects to a country specific article. MB 03:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some disagreement remains about whether to keep/retarget to Child protection or to retarget to Child protection (disambiguation). Additionally, Child welfare and Child Welfare Services were not properly tagged for the first round of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distinguish as a stub as this is a different and larger topic from "Child protection" or Child protective services, and equating the two as a redirect or simple disambiguation page is not a global perspective. Societies and political institutions can have child welfare policies that result in improvement of a children's well-being, without resorting to child protection. Child welfare includes policies and services that uphold a child's human rights, such as free education, minimum school leaving age, legislation to protect children from abuse or exploitation as well as support children in their own communities, such as maternity services, early childhood development services, financial support and welfare for parents and maintaining children in their families or living with their parents, rather than (simplistically) state intervention in a child's life. See child welfare for examples. Child abuse is a symptom of the failure of existing child welfare policy, practices, or services, which leads to the statutorily controlled intervention of social workers and invocation of child protective services. In New Zealand, for example, child welfare groups are seeking different approaches from its governments.[1] - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Child protection (i.e., keep Child welfare). I agree that a separate article is warranted, but until we're at that point, this is the best solution I see. I considered suggesting retargeting Child Welfare Services to Child protective services, but that first needs some sorting out regarding a globalize. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 19 February 2021 (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.

Full screen editor[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 to Full-screen writing program. czar 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect. It used to redirect to Visual editor which used to be about a general class of text editors before being turned into a redirect to VisualEditor, a WYSIWYG editor for MediaWiki. Delete. (Or redirect to Full-screen writing program instead?) Tea2min (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:VisualEditor § Redirect loop? for discussion about a hatnote at VisualEditor with a link to Visual editor. (I removed that hatnote before I had seen that talk page discussion.) – Tea2min (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'd say the redirection of Visual editor was improper and should be reverted and formal discussion held if it is deemed an unnotable concept. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Paul 012, and commented to this effect at #Visual editor before seeing this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two possible targets have been presented...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:42, 19 February 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:DW[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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect would sit better pointing to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. It's far more likely that somebody is going to want to point somebody's attention towards "due weight" in a discussion than mention a project page which has several other appropriate redirects already. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:34, 19 February 2021 (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.

Word art[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. Feel free to attempt disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see an obvious target for this, but artists using words in their works call this word art, and are often referred to as word-artists. Referring this to a Microsoft product which is spelt as one word seems incorrect to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: per nom Aasim (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Aasim. Having done a very quick Google, I think that I'd better create at least a stub article for "Word art (art form)", or similar. Then a DAB page for Word art. What do you think? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while it's possible that an article about Word art (art form) could be written, until such an article exists we have nothing to disambiguate (and so long as those are the only two potential entries at a dab page, hatnote disambiguation seems like a better solution). signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 3 March 2021 (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/2021_February_19&oldid=1138583082"