Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 30, 2013.

Crosslands Road[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) 17:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no mention in the article (or in the article for Boothstown, the place where Crosslands Road is actually located). It's also ambiguous as the name is not unique. Peter James (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there are many Crosslands Roads around, for example the one we have mentioned in an article is in Texas, so there is no reason to suppose that someone searching would be looking for this one. If we are to have a redirect then it would assist the reader to be disambiguated. In its present form it is confusing so deletion is the best option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Crosslands Road is mentioned as an exit in Texas State Highway 18 but as The Whispering Wind wrote, we'd need a proper disambiguation to keep the page alive. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the Crosslands Roads are even notable to be worth a mention, except as in a list of roads of some kind. There is no reason to have a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (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.

Jasyon Castro[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. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled redirect. Should be deleted earlier ago. ApprenticeFan work 10:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seeing how the page was created at this title, the typo is plausible. It's also harmless. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo. I have tagged {{R from misspelling}}. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo, and The Whispering Wind has now tagged it with {{R from misspelling}}. Looks like the redirect is now in good shape. Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect with no hot links. Not every spelling error like a transposition error needs a redirect and there needs to be justification for those that should be kept. What's the difference between this and Jayosn Castro, Jaysno Castro, Jayson Csatro, Jayson Casrto, and so on? Not much. There's at least two problems I see regarding keeping obscure typo redirects. One, it can encourage accidental usage of the misspelling in articles. When people are writing articles and hit the "show preview" button, the misspelling shows up as blue instead of red and they don't catch the fact that it was a typo. This doesn't seem to have occured yet for this particular article but the prevalence of this effect would increase in proportion to the topic's popularity. Second, by contaminating the search bar's predicted search term with typos, we can re-enforcing the misspelling in the searcher's mind, which is counter-educational. In my consideration, these negative effects have to be weighed against the convenience of the misspelling redirect to see if the redirect's existence is warranted. I don't see that occurring here. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to delete. If they make any other typos while writing an article, those won't be caught either if they don't spellcheck. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave two reasons to delete, so saying "no reason to delete" is dismissive and frustrating. Whether you agree or disagree with my rational is a different matter but weighing different points of view and trying to understand them is how you come to good conclusions. As for "other typos" not detected if a user spell checks, I fail to see why that makes a difference. First, many if not most of the terms hyperlinked in an article are proper nouns like names and the spellchecker is useless for them. (And is partly why having a filter to detect mistyped hyperlinks is a good thing.) As for "other typos", I fail to see how their existence means that detecting the wikilinked versions is not a positive. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't intend for it to be dismissive or frustrating. I just think that if they make a typo, they're getting a redirect anyway. If an editor finds the typo, they can fix it. Overall, I think the positives (that it's a likely typo and aids people searching) outweigh the negatives (a minor spelling error that still leads to the article anyway). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all this is a plausible typo. Secondly, I strongly disagree with the search bar argument. As I said at another RFD, There are problems with the search box's term predictions, we should fix them by fixing the search box, not by breaking otherwise good redirects. Deleting for that reason would set a dangerous president.
I remember when the predicted search term function was added, and frankly it had and still has some major kinks. It should not have been programed to show all redirects. It should probably exclude misspellings (except when the only results are misspellings), and it's far too prone to showing duplicate results, e.g. a redirect that only differs from it's target by the addition of an "s" at the end (Automobile vs Automobiles). We shouldn't break our redirects because our broken search box reacts badly to otherwise good redirects, we should fix the search box itself. In short the introduction of a broken search box should not be used as precedent to delete redirects we otherwise would have kept; we shouldn't break our redirects to fix our search box. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's your working definition of "plausible"? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference from the target is that the y and the s are swished around. Seeing as how the page was created at this title, it's hard to say it isn't plausible, and even if it were implausible it's a valid {{r from former title}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo, no motivation for deletion. WilyD 10:47, 4 November 2013 (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/2013_October_30&oldid=1138579288"