Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2018.

"Duma" a film by Abeer Zeibak Haddad[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible disambiguation.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. = paul2520 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not helpful. No point in keeping it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the full title of the film, no quote marks in title either. Comparable to "a Spike Lee joint" subtitle or any of those "a new book by best-selling author" phrases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

"Democracy and totalitarianism"(a book of Raymond Aron )”[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 speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard per the G7 criterion. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible dab with numerous stylistic errors and idiosyncrasies.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only exists as a redirect because i moved the original article from this title several years ago. Frankly, i don't know why we bother deleting redirects, even odd ones like this, since they don't take up any space but, meh, since we're here now, delete. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sinuosus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Sinuosus

Wikipedia:EACHMEDCITE[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The action I would like to occur is deletion, and the rationale for that action is the shortcut is not needed. It is shortcut overkill to use this shortcut when there is already a better shortcut being used. Against consensus it was added to a section that is not specifically about medical content. The section is about making citations visible. Two shortcuts is too many. See current discussion on talk page. Wikipedia:MEDCITE already exists. Therefore, it is too similar to Wikipedia:MEDCITE. It originally pointed to Citation underkill. There is opposition to using it at the Citation underkill essay. QuackGuru (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Maybe move it to Draft:Citations in medical articles#Citations for almost every sentence, but it's not at all an obvious shortcut. It certainly should not point to Wikipedia:Citation underkill. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • EACHMEDCITE is also too ambiguous. The editors at Draft:Citations in medical articles may not want this shortcut in the essay. It is currently not being used in any essay. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agree it is too ambiguous, that's kind of what I meant by saying it's not obvious. I support delete. If the editors at Draft:Citations want it, they can re-create it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not helpful to keep shortcuts that were created relatively recently, yet are unused and have no potential for use (its meaning is unclear). "What links here" shows the shortcut is not used. A project shortcut should not link to a draft page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shortcut name does not even make any sense. What rationale would there be for keeping it? None. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Draft:Citations in medical articles#Citations for almost every sentence. And please don't make a habit of nominating shortcuts for deletion. They're harmless and no one cares if they're "advertised" in the page or not, only if they're confusing (or ridiculous, like the one above this).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name of this shortcut is ridiculous. It is way too ambiguous. What does "EACH" supposed to mean. The shortcut was never added to the essay. It was originally added to citation underkill. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Who cares? If it's short and memorable and bears some relation to the topic and isn't misleading, it's a viable shortcut. Lots of shortcuts are "ridiculous", and a many are ambiguous in a vague sense. The ambiguity we don't like in shortcuts is when most people would think they go to a different page; e.g., if you created shortcuts "MOS:PUNCTUATE" and "MOS:PUNCTUATION" everyone's would expect them to go to the same place as MOS:PUNCT, so they'd get RfDed for retargeting if they didn't. There's nothing confusing or misleading about "EACHMEDCITE". Nice short morphemes, and on-topic for the sectional target.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      What does "EACH" supposed to mean. I don't get it. It cannot be a viable shortcut when the name of the shortcut is ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; memorable, bears a relationship to the target, and isn't taking up space we need for something else. Why bother deleting, why bother with this discussion. My apologies for duplication, but this same comment is going to each of these needless discussions. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It cannot be memorable when the name of the redirect is unclear. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:TOOFEWREFS[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not helpful to keep shortcuts that were created relatively recently, yet are unused and have no potential for use. "What links here" shows the shortcut is not used. It can be recreated if a useful purpose is found. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects were removed from the essay by consensus. We are not going to restore them later to the essay, especially when there are other redirects with better names. The potential harm is that they could be restored to the essay that would cause "shortcut overkill". If the redirect was useful it would be in the essay. We don't need more shortcuts in the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible, since it describes the central concern of the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You previously said "Too many shortcuts; no one is going to use one that is widely divergent from the title"[1] QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read what I'm writing in these things. You're mixing up a) how many shortcuts are advertised in the page itself (usually a max of two per section or anchor these days, though there are aberrant and excessive exceptions, e.g. at WP:What Wikipedia is not), and b) how many redirects can exist. You said in one of these that "we regularly delete unused shortcuts" but that's not actually true. They're generally just left alone. Otherwise we'd be deleting an F-load of shortcuts, because many sections at many pages have dozens of them, with us only "advertising" a handful of them. There is no one-to-one relationship between a redirect existing and a shortcut being listed in the page.

        I have no idea why you listed these all separately instead of in one mass nomination. Not going to go through all of these and re-re-reply.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • I did not state "we regularly delete unused shortcuts". I stated "This is routine cleanup to delete these because they are not used in the essay." QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          I was paraphrasing. Your actual statement was "We don't keep shortcuts that have been removed from the essay" which equates to "we regularly delete unused shortcuts", and isn't accurate in either wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The essay is not about "TOOFEWREFS" at all. It is about too many refs. See "When too many citations are used you may be able to trim the excessive citations." "TOOFEWREFS" is "NOT" the concern of the essay. The shortcut has never been used before. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          Then retarget the shortcut to a more appropriate page, as with some others nominated here; already been over this [2].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with retargeting the shortcut to another page, because the other pages are not about adding more citations after a sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's review: On July 1, 2017 you deleted this shortcut from the essay and stated in your edit summary "Too many shortcuts; no one is going to use one that is widely divergent from the title"[3]
          • On July 5, 2017 you stated in part on your talk page, "No essay needs that many shortcuts, especially a new one no one mentions but its author. A shortcut that has no obvious referent, isn't unambiguous, isn't memorable, and/or isn't likely to be used, is known as "polluting the namespace", routinely deleted at RfD.[4] You also stated "The more that are added, the fewer of them actually get used, because it interferes with their memorability."[5] Please let me know which ones or one you think are ""polluting the namespace", routinely deleted at RfD."
          • The essay states "One citation after each sentence is usually sufficient." The essay is clearly supporting less not more citations after a sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The rest of this I already addressed in detail [6], earlier. Short version: we delete shortcuts that make no sense; the ones you've nominated don't qualify. Removing excessive shortcuts from being "advertised" in the page does not equate to deleting the redirects; you are confusing these two things. Please do not fork the discussion further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              PS: You're also partial-quoting me from July; I also said "It's not necessary to delete then move shortcuts; you were already "advertising" the ones in the odd spaced style, and "redirects are cheap", so its harmless for them to remain".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • The shortcut is misleading and harmful. The underkill essay is not about TOOFEWREFS and the other essay is also not about TOOFEWREFS. QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; memorable, bears a relationship to the target, and isn't taking up space we need for something else. Why bother deleting, why bother with this discussion. My apologies for duplication, but this same comment is going to each of these needless discussions. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why bother deleting it? Because it will spread confusion by having too many redirects. The name of the redirect contradicts the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The "In a nutshell" TL;DR of this essay says it's advocating for using more citations, not fewer. I'm perfectly content to take the summary at its word until consensus emerges on the talk page of this essay to reword the TL;DR so that it says something else. Then we can come back here and have this discussion again, without the long threads of back-and-forth argumentation over what this essay is about. --NYKevin 04:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:CITE EVERYTHING[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not helpful to keep shortcuts that were created relatively recently, yet are unused and have no potential for use. "What links here" shows the shortcut is not used. It can be recreated if a useful purpose is found. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects were removed from the essay by consensus. We are not going to restore them later to the essay, especially when there are other redirects with better names. The potential harm is that they could be restored to the essay that would cause "shortcut overkill". If the redirect was useful it would be in the essay. Stating that it is useful does not mean it is useful. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible, since it is the main thrust of the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will cause confusion to keep this shortcut name because another essay is using the same shortcut name without the extra space. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, then retarget to the same place as that one, or vice versa.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  03:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought shortcuts with a space between them are not good. The essay is short and does not need a duplicate shortcut. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • We shouldn't create more of them, since they're disused, but there's no rationale for deleting ones that already exist. Addressed this further here. I hope this makes it clear why we group related nominations. It's taken about 10× longer to discuss this stuff than it should have.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • We shouldn't create more of them, but if others create more shortcuts then they should be kept? Is that your position? I am a bit perplexed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; memorable, bears a relationship to the target, and isn't taking up space we need for something else. Why bother deleting, why bother with this discussion. My apologies for duplication, but this same comment is going to each of these needless discussions. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why bother deleting it? Because it will spread confusion by having too many redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and {{trout}} the nominator for making me re-cast this !vote on multiple separate nominations. --NYKevin 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:UNHIDECITATION[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. It was recreated after I deleted it. It was deleted from the essay by the same editor who recreated it. There is no rationale explanation for keeping this redirect. It was replaced with a better shortcut name. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not helpful to keep shortcuts that were created relatively recently, yet are unused and have no potential for use. "What links here" shows the shortcut is not used. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable shorthand for the nature of the section to which it redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created this shortcut and then another editor recreated it after I deleted it. Then that the same editor who recreated it deleted it from the essay. I can create many shortcuts but if they are unused there is no point to keeping them. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who created it is irrelevant; if someone re-created it, that seems to be evidence it's wanted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; memorable, bears a relationship to the target, and isn't taking up space we need for something else. Why bother deleting, why bother with this discussion. My apologies for duplication, but this same comment is going to each of these needless discussions. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why bother deleting it? Because it will spread confusion by having too many redirects. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and {{trout}} the nominator for making me re-cast this !vote on multiple separate nominations. --NYKevin 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:HIDDENREF[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect seems to redirect to where it should, which also seems to be the most helpful target for the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect was replaced with a better shortcut name. It is not used in the essay and no editor will use it because it is not a shortcut used in the essay. It was deleted from the essay a long time ago. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steel1943, do you understand these shortcuts were replaced with better shortcut names a long time ago? There is no potential for use because they are not in the essay. Please explain the benefit of keeping a redirect that won't be used by editors. The essay should not have many shortcuts. It was decided a long time ago to use only a limited number of shortcuts. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Better" shortcut names? That's really not how that works; you are making some sort of claim of shortcut deprecation, which hasn't happened here and usually doesn't happen. This title, as well as the others you nominated, will probably not ever find better targets than what they currently target. Thus, my "keep". That, and you honestly do not know if they will never be used by editors. Lastly, your statement "It was decided a long time ago to use only a limited number of shortcuts" just baffles me; there are several pages with several shortcut, including Wikipedia:Protection policy. Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Better" shortcut names? Yes, that is how it worked for the essay. These shortcuts were deprecated, which means they were replaced with other shortcuts currently used in the essay. That's what happened. Thus, we don't keep numerous shortcuts in the essay, and I can honestly say these shortcut names should not be used because we have far better shortcut names.
        • We don't keep shortcuts that have been removed from the essay. I am not trying to find better target. This is routine cleanup to delete these because they are not used in the essay. They were removed from the essay because better shortcut names are currently being used. It was decided a long time ago to use only a limited number of shortcuts according to talk page consensus. The essay already has several shortcuts. You have not made any argument for adding more shortcuts to the essay. Therefore, these shortcuts are not needed. Also, there is no potential for use when they are not part of the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not helpful to keep shortcuts that were created relatively recently, yet are unused and have no potential for use. "What links here" shows the shortcut is not used. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No rational for removal. It is a useful shortcut for linking in discussions. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects were removed from the essay by consensus. We are not going to restore them later to the essay, especially when there are other redirects with better names. The potential harm is that they could be restored to the essay that would cause "shortcut overkill". If the redirect was useful it would be in the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible; this is a good shortcut for a section named "Hidden references". Update: Section name changed, so retarget to current section name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no section named "Hidden references". No article talk pages link to it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There used to be, people may have remembered it, and it's presently named "Hidden citations" which is close enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The section was updated a while ago. "HIDDENREF" is confusing. The essay is not suggesting references should be hidden. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; memorable, bears a relationship to the target, and isn't taking up space we need for something else. Why bother deleting, why bother with this discussion. My apologies for duplication, but this same comment is going to each of these needless discussions. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why bother deleting it? Because it will spread confusion by having too many redirects. It does not bear a relationship to the target. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and {{trout}} the nominator for making me re-cast this !vote on multiple separate nominations. --NYKevin 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:HIDEREF[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shortcut. It is useless and not being used. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not helpful to keep shortcuts that were created relatively recently, yet are unused and have no potential for use. Adding shortcuts spreads confusion—it's much better to stick to the tried-and-true unless there is a compelling reason for something new, which does not apply here. Has the creator (CFCF) been notified? Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What why? Of course it has potential for use — I've linked to it in discussions? Why delete something for no reason? What is the harm?
    Is there even potential harm? Carl Fredrik talk 15:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No editor linked it to any article discussion. These redirects were removed from the essay by consensus. We are not going to restore them later to the essay, especially when there are other redirects with better names. The potential harm is that they could be restored to the essay that would cause "shortcut overkill". QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per below. Section name was "Hidden references"; renaming to to "Hidden citations" (which has the same meaning) isn't going to magically erase the original section name from all brains, so the shortcut may still be used by someone. Whether the shortcut appears in saved page is irrelevant; many of us use them in the URL bar in our browsers to reduce typing time. Redirects are cheap, and we need not delete them unless they're problematic in some way (e.g. misleading, or meaningless gibberish).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You claim "Redirects are cheap, and we need not delete them unless they're problematic in some way (e.g. misleading, or meaningless gibberish)." When a redirect or shortcut has no potential for use there is no point in keeping it. It is better to use the main shortcuts with better names because it spreads confusion by having extra shortcuts. There are more shortcuts not in the essay than there are shortcuts in the essay. "HIDEREF" is confusing. The essay is not suggesting to "hide references". QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; memorable, bears a relationship to the target, and isn't taking up space we need for something else. Why bother deleting, why bother with this discussion. My apologies for duplication, but this same comment is going to each of these needless discussions. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why bother deleting it? Because it will spread confusion by having too many redirects. It does not bear a relationship to the target. The name of the shortcut contradicts the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and {{trout}} the nominator for making me re-cast this !vote on multiple separate nominations. --NYKevin 04:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sam Septiceye[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Sam Septiceye

Caught (Jay Sean song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Caught (Jay Sean song)

Homeless veterans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Homeless veterans

Bob Page (Deus Ex character)[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this be moved to Bob Page (Deus Ex) without leaving a redirect, per VG naming guidelines. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and create. Unless "Bob Page" is not a Deux Ex character, then it's a valid redirect. The one that's in accordance with VG article naming guidelines should be created though.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is discussed in this game's Plot section. I don't think it needs a separate article until that character proves independently notable. He seems to be one of the main antagonists and only lasts for the game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Square/Enix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Square/Enix

DX3[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "DX3" did not bring up anything related to Deus Ex. Implausible acronym. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This term seems to be connected to a number of different things, with none of them related to that particular video game. I agree. We should be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Intel DX4 had avoided the DX3 name because it was trademarked, what makes it that a video game is primary topic and without the same issue? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dehr[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Dehr

Robots in Deus Ex[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article barely mentions robots at all. Implausible redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no section on particular robots or androids (other than Android app) in the franchise AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dragon's Tooth Sword[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon not mentioned in series article nor in the game article it appears in. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Daedalus (Major Deus Ex)[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 speedily deleted. Killiondude (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Major Deus Ex" seems completely implausible as a redirect, as it's not even the game's title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Looks like a made a mistake in the title. I think we should move Deadalus (Major Deus Ex) to Daedalus (Deus Ex), without leaving a redirect. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major has been speedied. You can proceed with the Deus Ex character move without leaving redirect if desired. I don't know if an AI is considered a character or not really. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Genetically Modified Organism Project[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Genetically Modified Organism Project

National Secessionist Forces[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#National Secessionist Forces

United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While UNATCO is a fictional enough acronym to make a valid redirect, I feel like this redirect could be potentially misleading, given the United Nations is a real entity. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. UNATCO exists to absorb redirects and that acronym is used a lot more with respect to the game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:BRR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Wikipedia:BRR

RMS "Titanic"[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. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete: non useful redirect appears to be misguided style markup, misleads editors to link using it which is incorrect style, misleads readers similarly (keep: old) Widefox; talk 12:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Would propagate bad style. There isn't a difference in disambiguating between the quoted Titantic and unquoted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spamtastic[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 Spam (food). Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear in target article Lordtobi (✉) 12:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dollarydoo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Dollarydoo

Miscellaneous redirects to List of Doctor Who episodes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 28#Miscellaneous redirects to List of Doctor Who episodes

List of countries that can into space[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 deleted. Silly redirect referencing Polandball that nobody will use. ... discospinster talk 20:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly unlikely search term. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's an obvious WP:R3 given that the title doesn't even have sense and looks like it was mistyped. Largoplazo (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Misheard lyrics[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 Mondegreen. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mondegreen is also about (a different type) of misheard lyrics. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-redirect to Mondegreen That's the generic term, and the original redirect target. It looks like soramimi is just one culturally distinct instance of mondegreens. For information about misheard lyrics in general, one probably should be pointed to the mondegreen article. Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-redirect to Mondegreen A soramimi isn't really "misheard" so much as "misinterpreted".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mondegreen per above --Lenticel (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mondegreen. I tried to hatnote this but Mondegreen is the better target, explaining for example English phrases interpreted incorrectly in English, and not soramimi which has Language 1 interpreted in Language 2. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_January_20&oldid=1037876247"