Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 7

< June 6

June 8 >

June 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2009

Eletronic

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Eletronic → Electronic

Delete - This seems to be a misspelling of Electronic which it redirects to, although that isn't a reason for deletion, the misspelling is not a common one. The redirect therefore doesn't seem to have a reason for existence. WaysToEscape (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Redirects form misspellings help people with spelling difficulties in the same way a ramp helps a disabled person. We would never destroy a ramp just because there are few people who would need it. By the same standard we should not delete this redirect just because few people need it.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not saying only a few people need a ramp. I am just saying we would never destroy a ramp for that reason.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At what point are misspellings no longer valid as redirects? I can understand a redirect for a common misspelling (there is a redirect for mispelling, a common misspelling) but Eletronic doesn't seem to be very common. Why not Lectronic, Ellectronic, Electonic, Electronik, etc? Keeping Electonic could set a precedent that all misspellings are valid as redirects leading to thousands of redirects covering every misspelling imaginable. WaysToEscape (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • RE:"At what point are misspellings no longer valid as redirects?":When they do more harm then good. RE:"Why not Lectronic, Ellectronic, Electonic, Electronik, etc?" I think you have made my point for me, if they might help somebody, why not? RE:"Keeping Electronic could set a precedent that all misspellings are valid as redirects leading to thousands of redirects covering every misspelling imaginable." The only way I can see this being harmful is that it would clutter lists of redirects. Apart from that it would be helpful. Do you mean thousands of redirects per page, or thousands of redirects on all of Wikipedia? As for the clutter issue, we could delete the redirects that do more harm then good to when and if the clutter on lists of redirects get to a point when a very uncommon misspelling redirect would do more harm then good. This redirect does much more good then harm. We should never delete something on the basis that it does little good when it does more good then harm. Little good is still good.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • What is the definition of "more harm than good"? This is really what I am looking for as there are no clear guidelines. There are lots of pages which do not have redirects for potential misspellings. For example psychology could have redirects for psycology (420,000 Ghits), phsycology (171,000 Ghits), pyschology (33,900 Ghits), physcology (35,700 Ghits), psycolgy (24,100 Ghits). There are over 2.9m articles on Wikipedia, if there were 5 redirects for each article to cover misspellings there would be 14.5m redirects. Would this be "more harm than good"? If I type pyschology into the search box Wikipedia asks "Did you mean psychology" and if I typed eletronic it would ask me if I meant electronic if the redirect didn't exist wheareas it currently returns the redirect page. In which case, how does the redirect help the user? The main problems I have are:

1. A redirect for a misspelt title does not offer significant advantage over the search function
2. A misspelt wikilink would be less noticeable as it would be blue rather than red so an editor may miss this
3. Millions of redirects could be created using the same arguments used to keep Eletronic. Deleting them is currently a very slow process so waiting until the quantity becomes a problem before beginning to delete doesn't appear to be an ideal solution.
4. External links to Wikipedia articles could incorporate misspellings which would mean deleting redirects in future would break links.

I don't have a big problem with this particular redirect but it struck me that this could be the start of a slippery slope. If redirects such as this one are a good thing then should they be encouraged? Should I create redirects for Electronik, lectronic, Electonic, wieght, weigth, lenght, legnth, etc? WaysToEscape (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • WaysToEscape, You convinced me that we should delete this redirect. You should not have had to point out that "Did you mean Electronic" would appear if this redirect were deleted, I should have remembered. I can't believe I forget about that. Had I remembered, I would have supported deletion from the beginning.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Thank you for your support and for taking the time to consider my explanation. At least your initial opposition made me think about how to justify my position. WaysToEscape (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems to me there is a distinction to be drawn between redirecting common misspellings (incorrect knowledge), which is useful and instructive, redirecting typographic errors (imperfect action), which is less fruitful, and redirecting outright garblespeak (willful indiscriminateness), which is counterproductive. There is considerable overlap however, as one result can arise from different causes, which is likely the case in this instance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – 1,230,000 Ghits, common misspelling, certainly plausible. American Eagle (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: it's not that far off from the correct spelling, it could easily be a typo. Also per AE's link. Tavix |  Talk  17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The "Did you mean Electronic" That would appear if this redirect were deleted would let people know they have misspelled "electronic". This redirect is just useless clutter on the lists of redirects. This redirect does much more harm then good.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.