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. [retargeted to Nefarious per consensus.] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Misleading redirect. Perhaps redirect to wikt:Nefarious, as nefarious is a disambiguation page not having the principle meaning, which is not evil. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nefarious or delete. I'd oppose a Wiktionary redirect, as they're supposed to be used sparingly. The dab already links to wikt:nefarious anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget or delete per BDD. A lot of these redirects to evil and morality are coming up lately and I wonder if somehow they could be grouped? Si Trew (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget what BDD said. Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 19:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.144.210 (talk) [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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Malicious conduct → Evil (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Misleading redirect. Possible redirect to Malice (law), but that might also be misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible redirect of a two-word phrase, this is an encyclopedia not a dictionary or a thesaurus (besides the fact that 'malicious conduct' is not necessarily the same thing as 'evil). Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget but not sure where. I am not sure since all my books are in store, but isn't "malicious conduct" a legal term in some states of the United States to mean what in the United Kingdom would be called, I don't know going equipped or assault and battery or something?

For example here: "Mitigating malicious conduct" (PDF). icann.org. ICANN. 3 October 2009. Retrieved 8 March 2014.

and here:"Beaufort County Deputies Unruly Inmate Charged With Malicious Conduct". Eastern Carolina: WITN.COM. 25 November 2013. Retrieved 8 March 2014.

Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nom did't argue it to be retargeted but deleted. I think it should be retargeted but I am not an expert in US law (for that matter I am not an expert in anything) but I would have thought someone who was could find a better target for it, since it patently seems to be a specific law in some states of the US. Misdimeanour or felony might do but seems a bit vague to me. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nom provided the option of retargetting it. I think it's a reasonable option. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I say I am not an expert on US law, but perhaps retarget to absence of malice? I really don't know, I am familiar with UK law but tha would also seem, well, a reasonable target but not a great one. Misdimeanor exists I think but the distinction in the common law between a felony and a misdimeanor (in UK law they are not really distinguished now in the way they are in the US) makes it hard to make this WP:WORLDWIDE.

See for example

• Shulz, John M.; Shreb II, John (19 February 2013). Criminal Law and Procedure. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1285070117..

I only have this book in the 2nd Edition from about twenty years ago and it is chiefly U.S. law but says that in Louisiana this, in New York that, and so on. So I am not sure that this is really a very WP:WORLDWIDE expression and perhaps it should just be deleted? Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This set of redirects is stupid and should be deleted Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 15:54, 14 March 2014 (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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike Harmon Racing → Mike Harmon (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete Redirect could plausibly be turned into a full article. Per WP policy, if the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. D-Day (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Virtually no information is better than no information. nothing is stopping D-Day from creating an article on this subject. Until then the redirect is useful and points to the parent subject. It's also approriate to expand coverage there as there is no policy against a merged article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UNDUE springs to mind - covering the team in the driver's article would be in violation of that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not seeing how D-Day's nomination is valid, to be perfectly honest. This redirect is clearly valid and useful, and if you want it to be turned into a full article, then I suggest you do so yourself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the redirect useful when it points to an article that is not about the team? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say keep if the redirect were the other way around. As such, this is what I call a condescending redirect. Someone searching for "Mike Harmon Racing" very likely knows about Mike Harmon, or at least knows enough to search for "Mike Harmon" if they're looking for information on the individual rather than the company. If we had some information on the company at the target page, I might think otherwise, but for now, delete per WP:REDLINK, or WP:RFD#DELETE #10 if you prefer. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. The article is a bit of a mix of his professional racing career and his personal biography, which is unsatisfactory but WP is WP:NOTFINISHED. It would seem to me, as someone who knows nothing ab,out NASCAR or Mike Harmon or his racing team, an entirely plausible search term. By WP:TITLE it should just be at the shorter title anyway, and the redirect from the longer title is entirely appropriate until (if ever) the article is split to separate articles for the racing team and the chap himself. Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...WP:TITLE is irrelevant here. The team is entirely different from the driver, and the racing team would never be titled at the short form name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BDD makes a good argument. The redirect maybe useful, however the fact is that the racing team is quite distinct from the driver, and having redirects that point to driver articles when the redirect is on the subject of the team both mislead Wikipedia users and discourage the creation of an article on the actual team, as most users will see a bluelink and assume an article exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:USEFUL:

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.

Patently in the absence of two separate articles (which I admit would be better but I can't do them cos I know nothing about the person or the racing team) then it is a useful redirect. Si Trew (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People can already see Mike Harmon when they type this in Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment then just move it over to the shorter title. It doesn't need the "Racing" bit at the end if there is no separate article to split out the team from the person. Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2014 (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 } keep all. While not everyone explicitly wanted all of them kept, several commenters did and there was no consensus for the deletion of any of the templates. Deprecation was suggested, but this attracted minimal discussion and certainly no agreement about which should be deprecated so there is no consensus for that course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following currently have no uses:

1. Template:TPER → Template:Edit template-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

2. Template:Edit template protected → Template:Edit template-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

3. Template:Edittemplate-protected → Template:Edit template-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

4. Template:Edit templateprotected → Template:Edit template-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

5. Template:Edittemplateprotected → Template:Edit template-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

6. Template:Edit-Semi Protection → Template:Edit semi-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

7. Template:Edit locked → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

8. Template:MediaWikiEdit → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The following currently have 5 or fewer uses:

9. Template:SPER → Template:Edit semi-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

10. Template:Mediawikiedit → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

11. Template:Changerequest → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

12. Template:Edit Protected → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The following currently have 50 or fewer uses:

13. Template:Protected edit → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

14. Template:EditProtected → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

15. Template:Edit protect → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

16. Template:Edit semiprotected → Template:Edit semi-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

17. Template:Edit-protected → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

18. Template:Edit semi protected → Template:Edit semi-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

19. Template:Editsemiprotect → Template:Edit semi-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

20. Template:Edit-semiprotected → Template:Edit semi-protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

21. Template:Edit requested → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The following currently have 500 or fewer uses:

22. Template:Editprotect → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

23. Template:Editrequested → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

24. Template:Editrequest → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

25. Template:Sudo → Template:Edit protected  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I am proposing that the uses of the above redirects be changed to point directly to the target, and the redirects be deleted, because the large number of the redirects makes it difficult to write automated tools to handle edit requests. Note that the presence of the "Submit an edit request" button on protected pages means that users no longer have to type these in by hand at all. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered the entries. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target templates are:

• ((Edit template-protected)) (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)
• ((Edit semi-protected)) (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)
• ((Edit protected)) (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)

-DePiep (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that there is a "submit an edit request" button on pages does not mean that it will be used. I've seen many requests that either were made without using the button, or the button that was used is using malformed code. It is evidenced in the fact that people use the wrong level of request in edit requests and edit requests are made without the typical parameters of |<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=no. That being said, if just a "few" of these were removed, automated scripts should be able to easily process the rest by stripping " ", "-", and being case insensitive. Those few oddballs are in no particular order: Template:TPER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Edit locked (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:SPER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Changerequest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Template:Sudo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 18:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At least ((TPER)) as it's easier to type. Why would you delete an easy-to-type shortcut? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack, I think there will be a lot of these types of keep votes. I think the way to address them is to make those extra difficult templates be SUBST: only and have the end result be something easily parsed by the scripts. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the four-letter shortcuts (and the other ones too). I've created ((TPER)) as an analogue to ((SPER)) four days ago, so it's not very surprising it has not been widely used yet. The TPER redirect was actually used by me for an edit request at Template talk:Archive bottom, until it was bypassed by the proposer today. I think saying the redirect "currently [has] no uses", while correct, is therefore pretty misleading (I don't know whether this was on purpose). That these shortcuts are barely used is probably because not many users know about them, though that can be changed by adding ((shortcut)) templates to the doc pages. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no problem with ((TPER)) or ((SPER)) existing, what I just said above though is they should be ((subst:TPER)) or ((subst:SPER)) respectively so that what is left on the page after the save is something that can be easily parsed by a script or bot. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 22:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think ((TPER)) and ((SPER)) should be converted from a redirect to a transclusion of ((Edit template-protected)) and ((Edit semi-protected)), so the latter templates are transcluded if the shortcut templates are substituted? Or should they stay a redirect and, if substituted, put the Lua invoke on the page? SiBr₄ (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm normally all for deleting obscure and little-used template redirects. However, most of these are not obscure, and they could be easily handled by a simple regular expression in an automated tool.

  Having said that, I'd vote to delete the following: Edit locked, MediaWikiEdit, Mediawikiedit, Edittemplate-protected (strange hyphenation) and Changerequest, as unusual and little-used template redirects. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all (1) spaceless versions represent the common form of template names prior to a massive rename campaign of recent origins. (2) these are edit requests, one would think there would be few transclusions, as requests will have been processed, so they would no longer be transcluded, therefore the number of transclusions is meaningless in this nomination. (3) Why bother using the "submit an edit request" button if you see "VIEW SOURCE" as the edit tab? Clearly you need to head over to the talk page, since "VIEW SOURCE" does not indicate you can submit an edit request at all. And then the edit request template should be easy to find, not lost and have you guessing how to spell it properly. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When edit requests are answered, an |answered=yes parameter is added to deactivate a request, so the template itself is still transcluded. Unless the templates are replaced, the redirects above indeed have few transclusions. Though, of course, that doesn't mean that they will never be used (some are just not widely known). SiBr₄ (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I deliberately didn't nominate the old spaceless versions, ((editprotected)) and ((editsemiprotected)). The rest aren't renames. (2) As SiBr4 says, answered requests are still transcluded. (3) Most people do that. Look at most of the requests in CAT:ESP. They almost all use it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people who answer the semiprotected ones do not leave the template around. I've seen it tlx'd or nowiki'd, deleted, etc. Also, some people replace the tranclusion used in the request, with a different formulation. As for most people editing by viewing the source, it isn't the logical conclusion to make to be able to edit the protected page, and we shouldn't be expecting people to make the illogical conclusion that they can request an edit through viewing the source, especially if they're clicking out of habit for the edit link and then finding they can't it will only be regular editors who will do that, whilst nonregular ones are not obviously going to figure out that bit of interface design. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accounted for the tlx'd ones by counting links as well as transclusions when I counted uses. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ((Tlc))ed, ((Tld))ed, ((Tlf))ed, and ((Tnull))ed ones don't contain links, and <nowiki>...</nowiki> ones wouldn't either. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 16:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I accounted for most of them, since most people use tl or tlx. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce list gently but surely by deletion, deprecation, and a smart wrong-name-used warning. I note that even a reasonable alternative name like {Edit template protected} is not transcluded in archives, i.e. is used not or rarely (assuming talkpage archives were not cleaned for this RfD).

First: the target names like "{edit protect}" are wrong, because they do not convey what the template is or does. They better be moved/renamed! to something like "{Request protected edit}" (*suggested name only, to get the point; one of three). If not renamed, for each target exactly one such perfect name should exist as a Redirect. Also, one correct shortcut should exist: {Template:RPE} (*). (At last, I understand why I always got that horribly-wrongly named template right: I was redirected after guessing a more reasonable name!).

Second, most remaining guessed-names and typo-names could be declared deprecated and redirect to a new warning template like {Request protected edit-typo} (*) that says "you typed the wrong name, please use '{Request protected edit}' instead". Third, a few redirects that are plausible names (but not typo's or guesses) could stay as a redirect. The zero-used redirects can be deleted. We should be very tough on this, and keep the number low. Note: any number of uses (in archives & answered I understand; active requests should be replaced by this RfD) is not reason to keep them unchanged, we are not taken hostage by our archives. Of course, my proposed warning-template could leave a nice message in the archive & talkpages. (however, the 500-uses-list has sensible names, maybe they could be kept unchanged)

Now some numbers: #10 (a mw edit???) is wrong enough for a deletion. #25 (Sudo) is from the Unixverse, but less and less covering its job here: e.g. I am TE, but no SU (superuser) in any way. #1 and #9 (TPER and SPER) are an abbreviation of what? "PE" meanng "EP"? How can anyone be helped by a secret illogical abbreviation? Space-less and hyphen-less/-rich variants can lead to the warning too. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that ((SPER)) means "semi-protected edit request" (the ((TPER)) template created by me would likewise mean "template-protected edit request"). "SPER" was probably chosen because three-letter template names are often used as shortcuts for flag templates. "ESP" for "edit semi-protected" wasn't possible because ((ESP)) is a flag shortcut for Spain; ((ESp)) and ((ETp)) generate standard messages to answer semi- and template-protected edit requests.

I don't think the shortcuts should be deleted just because they are barely used. I'd support adding ((shortcut|SPER)) etc. to the templates' documentation pages to let more people know they exist. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm guessing that ((SPER)) was created because it was easy to remember not only because it is a simple four letter acronym, but also because it is the name of the table that many people who review edit requests see (User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable, User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable, and User:AnomieBOT/PERTable). The difficulty here is that having such a diverse number of different template names makes it that much harder to write a script to find them all even with a regular expression. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 16:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects listed by This, that and the other can be deleted if it makes writing scripts easier, though I think the TPER and SPER shortcuts shouldn't. That way still only two template names for each protection level need to be searched for (if the searches are made space- and hyphen-insensitive using regex, most other redirects such as "edit templateprotected" and "editsemiprotected" can stay too). SiBr₄ (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I could have made these guesses too. The point is that shortcuts are only used & useful the other way around: you know the shortcut from a practical reason (memory, obvious abbreviation), and then don't have to bother about the exact page name. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the main templates ((Edit semi-protected)) and ((Edit template-protected)) can be moved to "Semi-protected edit request" and "Template-protected edit request" respectively? That way the templates do what their name implies (addressing the first point from your comment above), and the SPER and TPER shortcuts make more sense. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the most part. The nominator identifies an actual problem, but I'm not convinced that deleting these redirects is the best way to solve it. Better to force substitution, as Technical 13 mentions. A few of these seem like obscure synonyms. I'd rather have them discussed on their own, but if the closer really wants to go over this discussion with a fine-toothed comb, I'd support deletion of #8-#11 and #25. --BDD (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "'Keep"'. Most of it should not be deleted. 166.171.59.24 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Relisting comment: There seems to currently be some mixed consensus on which ones should remain, and which ones should be deleted. More specific examples about which ones should be deleted and kept might help for consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• To summarize my comments above: Keep ((TPER)) and ((SPER)) (# 1 and 9) and plausible alternatively spaced, hyphenated or capitalized versions (# 2, 4, 5, 12, 16–18 and 20; these can be easily caught using regex). As for the others: ((MediaWikiEdit)) and ((Mediawikiedit)) might be useful for editors who request changes to interface pages who don't know ((Edit protected)) is required, though these and others may be replaced and either deprecated as described by DePiep or deleted.

As for the presence of the "Submit an edit request" button: like IP 70.50.151.11 above, I didn't know about it and never used it. For users like me who prefer adding an edit request manually, the TPER and SPER shortcuts would be useful, as would be redirects from alternative hyphenations and capitalizations for those who know neither the shortcuts nor the exact actual template name. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would ever think to use MediaWikiEdit or other capitalizations thereof. I'm guessing that all of its transclusions are by whoever created it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that ((Mediawikiedit)) was created as a separate template one day before it was redirected to ((Editprotected)). I've checked the links to the template and only one of these links was made by the creator. The other four links were made by other users when it was already a redirect; three of them are actually edit requests. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (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 Violation#Law. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Law violation → Crime (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Implausible search term. Shearonink (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Violation#Law. Seems to be the best target for this ambiguous term. Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Steel1943. Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Violation#Law per Steel1943.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:31, 10 March 2014 (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 86th Academy Awards#“Adele Dazeem” incident. Taking the discussion as a whole there is no consensus for any action, but all those who commented after the closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 5#Adele Dazeem (which discussion earlier commenters also referenced) supported retargetting to the same target as that redirect. Retargetting therefore seems a better option than no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Adela Dazeem → Idina Menzel (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Created as part of a vandalism move, quickly reverted. Not a likely search term. SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 5#Adele Dazeem for a related RfD discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adele Dazeem is likely to be kept. I'm not thrilled with that, but we certainly don't need to keep variations on a one-off nickname for someone which is not mentioned at the target page and likely to become obscure in time. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not thrilled with the result of the previous discussion either, but it is the best of a bad job. Shall I create Adéle Kareem or Nozzle Brylcreem directed to these? I am perhaps preening, but my discussion in 2009 about the 31 redirects at Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Gratz and the 8 that got deleted in January 2014 for the same reason (poor old Al seems to have a bit of a case of the royal disease when it comes to redirects, and spreads them around unknowingly), my point was these actually hurt the search engine if people just throw in any old misspelling or typo as a redirect, that is what the search engine is for. Adding other redirects is just compounding a felony. Si Trew (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment. It seems quite a likely search term if we are to have these at all. I, after all, at the previous discussion, wrote "Nazeem" instead of "Dazeem" as a bit of a typo and a bit probably thinking of the boxer or someone. So in that sense it is a likely search term; but I can't see the point of redirects doing what the search engine should do. A few years ago the search engine was so hopeless that these redirect made sense, it has got a little bit better in the last couple of years and where it fails "your favourite search engine" will always find it, so there are no good reasons to keep it just for that. Si Trew (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adele Dazeem.--Theparties (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theparties created this redirect by the wholly inappropriate move of Idina Menzel to this title and is currently blocked for disruption. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously the person herself should be named as such, that was a ridiculous move (I can imagine there are other people called Adele Dazeem but they are not notable, just as my real name is "Simon Trew" but I am not notable but the military historian who works at RAF Sandhurst] probably is and I keep wanting to make a stub for him but never get around to it). The move was ridiculous and always, to my mind, confuses the discussion when things have the rug pulled from under your feet while they are being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Si Trew, I'm having trouble understanding your first sentence, i.e. everything before "The move was ridiculous". Could you rephrase it? Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do tend to ramble. I mean, there are bound to be more people than the target who are called Adele Dazeem, and since she is not called that, but was just once callled that mistakenly and famously, until other Adele Dazeems are notable, it might as well stay. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Isn't making multiple deletion threads for the same article against some kind of rule? That would be like if the redirect was deleted, then immediately after someone makes a thread to add it back. This should be Merged with the March 5th entry.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fruitloop11: these are two different redirects: Adele Dazeem (the "March 5th entry) vs Adela Dazeem (this entry). Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People WILL go looking for this, as it is big news, so it would be wise to keep it Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 15:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People might be looking for information on the time -- when was that? -- when Travolta mispronounced Menzel's name. They would reasonably be expected to look for Idina Menzel, John Travolta or Academy Awards. It seems highly unlikely they would hear the mispronunciation somewhere, have no idea who it was supposed to be, who said it, where they said it, etc. and come up with this exact approximation of a spelling of the mispronunciation. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand Adele Dazeem makes somewhat sense. This is unnecessary. Coderzombie (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that Adele Dazeem has been retargeted to 86th Academy Awards#“Adele Dazeem” incident, do Theparties and Nedgreiner still want to keep this as is? --BDD (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 86th Academy Awards#“Adele Dazeem” incident - per closing result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 5#Adele Dazeem. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 86th Academy Awards#“Adele Dazeem” incident or delete — The name is really only relevant to the Academy Awards incident, until someone who really has that name becomes notable, and this is not the most common spelling. —PC-XT+ 23:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there's probably not anyone in the world who actually has this name, or at least not a notable person with it. While Adela is a real given name, "Dazeem" is only attested on Wikipedia in references to this incident. I also tried "Dazim", which yielded no results. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not intend that part of my comment to be taken too literally. It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that such would happen. The last part referred to spelling the mispronunciation, not the actual surname, if there is a similar one. —PC-XT+ 01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - so long as it's discussed at 86th Academy Awards#“Adele Dazeem” incident, retargetting there is the only sensible option (until such time that it needs to be spun out for it's own article, or the section is removed, at which time a second RfD would be appropriate). WilyD 09:47, 1 April 2014 (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 Despair. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request re-targeting to Despair, entire Hope article is biased, zero information on Hopelessness. Hopelessness better off at Despair Mr. Guye (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me, although Nom perhaps should not have said "entire Hope article is biased", because that is a bit POV. Retarget to Despair per nom. Si Trew (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about the bias, I was not drawing conclusions from nothing. A discussion on its talk page suggests possible reasons for bias. Notice I did not participate. But back to the matter at hand, if Hopelessness is re-targeted, it would be re-targeted directly to the Depression (mood) article to avoid a double redirect (if those are undesirable) as Despair redirects to the Depression (mood) article anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2014 (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.