Category talk:Redirects from misspellings

message: Why even allow this type of page?   If the creator of the link sees that it is broken right away they are more likely to fix it.  Similarly for someone who comes along and sees that the link is broken.  TechPurism 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While judging whether they deserve a redirect or not probably isn't possible, there are plenty of very easily misspelled words (calling them non-standard spellings would probably work better) that get huge numbers of hits, and it would be a real lapse of judgement not to include redirects to those queries (e.g. Antartica, which is how the rest of my family likes to think it's spelled).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Should a redirect that is different from the correct page title only by capitalization be considered a misspelling? For instance, should Abraham lincoln be listed as a "redirect from misspelling"? –RHolton≡– 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, it appears people use this template for such clearly nonstandard capitalizations. However, when a variation in capitalization is not a misspelling but rather a matter of stylistic preference, as with, say, Coriolis Effect → Coriolis effect,  and the corresponding :Category:Redirects from other capitalisations are a better alternative. Wmahan. 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization as a misspelling? 

message: I just discovered this template. As a lousy speller myself who does try to get things spelled right, I am glad to see it. However, it should be obvious to a redirected user what happened. If I go to Condoleeza Rice and wind up at Condoleezza Rice, I could easily miss this:
: (Redirected from Condoleeza Rice)
I would like to see
preferably on its own page so I'd have to click and would have my misspelling negatively reinforced and still get the page I want. Alternately this box could appear on the correct page. Is this technically feasible with MediaWiki? —Ben FrantzDale 01:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might be kind of annoying for some users, especially those with slow connections.  I guess it depends how many people are interested in learning how to spell and how many are just interested in getting to their article quicker.  So I don't know.  But I personally wouldn't like this change.  delldot | talk 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be great. This i how google work when you enter misspelled word.–Stijak 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with and despite of possible annoyance of users with slow conection, I vote for this change. In the long run it could lessen the load on the servers, and provide more spell-knowable users. In the short run it could increase the load, though - but only to a negligible extent. --Biblbroks's talk 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd vote for this too. Re delldot's "I guess it depends how many people are interested in learning how to spell and how many are just interested in getting to their article quicker", I'd guess anyone who looks up an article on Wikipedia is interested in learning more about the article's subject, including how to spell it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WinTakeAll (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Obvious 

message: Since you have to subst the template to see the text on the page (it only appears in the edit window), shouldn't the page say 
"To add a redirect to this category, put  after the redirect but on the same line."
rather than
"To add a redirect to this category, put  after the redirect but on the same line."
as it currently does?  If you all agree to the change, I'll discuss it on the other redirect templates' talk pages too.  delldot | talk 01:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well no one objected, so I'm going to make the change.  If there's a problem with that, you can revert me or discuss it here.  Thanks, delldot | talk 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Substing?

message: Right now, we only have broken red links and working blue links. It would be helpful to have additional colors, maybe purple (as halfway between red and blue) to indicate a legitimate redirect, and a bright orange for an unwanted redirect from misspelling that should be corrected asap. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat my posting at Template talk:R from misspelling#Redirects displayed in different color?, I think a bot that simply listed existing links to redirects that are to correct misspellings would be better.  Changing the color is only going to confuse readers, who outnumber editors by at least a thousand to one.  And most editors aren't going to know what the new color means without some sort of mass education program - effort that would be better spent actually fixing the errors themselves, since even if an editor does know what a purple link or an orange link means, he/she may well not be interested in fixing it (or have time to do so).  With a list, editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect, and other interested editors, could simply fix bad links. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 16:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects displayed in different color? 

message: I picked four obviously not misspelled things at random from the top of the list and find that all are patently not s but . Did some idiot run a bot? Before I go ahead and find out who did... which I already suspect... so an explanation of why they are so would be handy. Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, other names or possibly incorrect names, but not misspellings.  The first one I looked at, , was just done hours ago by Basilicofresco.  First that editor tagged the redirect with , then changed it to another alias, , an obvious misnomer.  Maybe that editor can help shed some light on this? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 22:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a bunch of redirects from "incorrect names" with unnecessary quotation marks, so I decided to tag them in order to be sure they will stay orphan. I considered also a deletion request, but apparently they do not fall in this list: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting. Since there were mistakes in the names, the tag  sounded appropriate. Nevertheless the mistake was not a common misspelling, so in order to avoid mixing them, I created a placeholder "" that redirects here and I used it to tag them.  is not correct because they are not alternative names, just plain mistakes. Anyway you are right,  seems more appripriate. I will replace all the  with . -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you, Basilicofresco –  is probably the best way to go, since these are all s per the WP:TITLEFORMAT policy. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What"s with the {{tld|Redirect from uncommon spelling}} 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Category tree questions.  ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Category tree questions|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect §&nbsp;Category tree questions]]