Category talk:Common misspelling redirects

"yourselfes" is not a common mispelling; this should be deleted Loves to Sync 14:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The anon obviously searched for it. Deleting it will cause more harm than good, since deletion doesn't save bandwidth or anything. -Auron 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, can you name a more common misspelling of "yourselves"? I don't think you can. :) Woopdeedoo 14:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

yourselfs. Loves to Sync 14:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you statistically show this is a common misspelling? --Riddle 14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

do you mean yourselfes or yourselfs or both? Loves to Sync 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To any misspelling of Yourselves. Is there a statistically common misspelling? --Riddle 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you statistically show this is a significant enough issue for the statistics to be of any significance? Woopdeedoo 15:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys

You do realise this discussion is adding kilobytes right? D: Misery 15:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

well then this should have been deleted. we're supposed to keep this just because an anon supposedly searched for it (where is the proof that this anon searched for it by the way)? So we're going to add a redirect for every misspelled term that an anon searches for? That'll add several more kilobytes as well. Loves to Sync 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, generally we add redirects for every misspelled term that anons search for. we don't want users to have to rely on mediawiki's search function, which is total balls.

I brought up the space issue because I assumed that's what the pro-deletionists concern is, since without that, there's really no argument left in favor of deleting it. -Auron 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda think anyone who spells it "yourselfes" doesn't deserve to find the page they are looking for, but then that's just me. ;) -- Salome 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think "Save Yourselfes" should not be included in Category:Common_misspelling_redirects and be deleted? It seems just like some of the other redirects there.Woopdeedoo 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainly as its an absolutely ridiculous misspelling, but really I don't mind. It's not taking up any more space or bandwidth, so its a none issue as far as I'm concerned. -- Salome 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the common misspelling category and it's pretty ridiculous; necroMACER? Are you kidding me? Is this some guy that sprays mace on people? We shouldn't have a category set up to reward people that misspell. Loves to Sync 15:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Eww, you just made me think of all the 'WTB ambrace' spam. I remember one person even named it "embrace" at some point. I agree, half of those redirects are humorously silly. -Woopdeedoo 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So we'll allow "Unsuspekting Strike," "Wale of Doom," "Holy Vale," "Theirs nothing to fear," "Woonding Strike," "Protecter's Strike," "Death Pack Signet," "Signet of Allusions," "Master of Majic," "Apply Poysin," etc. if an IP adds it? --Riddle 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

YAY! Phonetic spelling FTW! -- Salome 16:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it could greatly enhance the entertainment value of this wiki. -Woopdeedoo 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Loves - Yes, we should have that category. It doesn't exist to "reward" people who misspell. Redirects are a tool and a resource, and they make navigating the wiki and finding what you want much faster and easier. It isn't some elementary school system of prizes for good behavior, and shouldn't be thought of as such.

The mediawiki search function positively blows - I've been using it for longer than 5 years and I still can't find stuff occasionally. If you misplace or leave out a single letter, the search often returns nothing. Since redirects are faster, more convenient to use, and vastly more noob-friendly than manual searches for everything every single time you want to find it, we decided to let people redirect all kinds of stuff. The category is just there so we can keep track of them more easily.

I really have no fucking idea why you're opposed to this in the first place. You don't use it? That's nice. Who cares? You aren't the only person on this wiki. The redirects aren't hurting your browsing experience. If you like manually searching for everything under the sun, you can still hit the "search" button instead of "go" and take twice as long finding what you want. That's fine, but don't punish others for personal preference. Realize that plenty of people misspell names of places, quests and bosses - partly because they're in a hurry, partly because it's a fantasy game with made-up words, and partly because people are stupid and prone to mistakes and errors. Whatever the reason, redirects are an invaluable tool and aid greatly in finding things quickly. Having an abundance of redirects doesn't hurt anything.

Now please, give me a good argument against those redirects. All I've heard is bitching from you, yet you don't even understand why they exist. If you're so opposed to them, you should have a vast list of reasons why they're bad. Care to share some?

1834971 edit conflicts later - yes, I would defend redirects for "Theirs nothing to fear" or "Protecter's Strike." Does the existence of the redirect somehow hinder your ability to spell it correctly? I'm not understanding people's problems with redirects here. There are friggin birthday celebration project pages that have no relevance to anything and nobody wants it deleted, yet these redirects that add utility and make the wiki more useful get tagged? If you're trying to find stuff to prune, start looking at what actually needs pruning. -Auron 16:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) haven't read everything above but I once saw poke write somewhere (iirc) that a redirect takes less bandwidth than a non-existing search action, so I suppose there's no problem in having a lot of redirects, right? — Why 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

my god what an epic fail discussion. lets redirect every conceivable misspelling of a word. "urselves", "yurselves", "yirselves", "yerselves", "youselves", ad infinitum. just on the off chance that some anon can't figure out how to spell correctly. --VVong|BA 02:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with Mantis, which is a mis-spelling of Mantid, but is the correct spelling of, er Mantis. Anyone know what I mean? --snograt 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) u guys are wasting ur time, 88 redirects aren't enough to be a concern, even if some are pretty stupid it doesn't even take up bandwidth... --81.233.248.107 06:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression we didn't do redirects for misspellings. This was partly due to me finding a page that had been deleted, and the reason for deleting it was (paraphrased) "we don't do redirects for minor spelling errors." But whatever, idc anymore for "youselfes". --Riddle 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Auron summed it up nicely. Well, he didnt, he wrote half a page. But anyway. Do misspelling redirects hurt anyone in any way? No, they don't. They make the experience of using this wiki smoother for a large number of users. I think something like "Save Yourselfes" or "Abbadon" should be kept. Something like "Slaver's", however, can't really be called a misspelling, so I dont think it belongs in this category. -Woopdeedoo 05:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)