Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2016

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← December 2015 Votes for deletion archives for January 2016 (current) February 2016 →
  • Delete, no redirect. If we're going to redirect these kinds of unlikely spelling mistakes, we should redirect Untied States, New Jork and Myami. Also, see discussion at Wikivoyage:Travellers' Pub#Redirects for spelling mistakes?. I'd actually support a speedy deletion, but whenever there might be any doubt, do a Vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick glance through the google results shows that it's not that unlikely a search term at all . It's probably unlikely for native English speakers, but less so for non-native speakers from other parts of the world, apparently. Determining the likeliness of spelling mistakes is not that easy, since the English Wikivoyage is also the go to one for people who write English as a second language. The spelling mistakes these people make, depend also on their own mother tongue. More in general, deleting redirects remains a particularly useless discussion. I'm not suggesting we should systematically produce redirects for spelling mistakes on a large scale, and I wouldn't create one if the search engine pulls out the correct article nonetheless. However, if someone found it worth the effort to create it - I can't see why we would want to delete it. I can only imagine we're thinking of space - but that's a complete misconception. Any change we make, including deleting it, costs more space than just leaving it. Having even a short discussion about a redirect costs far more space than just leaving a whole bunch of them would. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument convincing. I now would concede that it makes sense to keep this redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's impossible for us to know what every country/city/town/etc name sounds like in every existing world language and it's really not something we should be concerned with. With this particular redirect I wouldn't be upset if it were kept, since there probably are a small number of native speakers who might make this misspelling, but I don't really think it's necessary. Google corrects it for you so you don't even get the list of results for it. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you should know; the question is why we would actively delete it if someone else has taken the trouble of creating it? What's the downside of keeping it around for those few hundred people who might not spell it correctly? The issue is obviously not with Google searches; it's our own search engine that's not great at finding the correct article when the name is misspelled. People who are searching for "Nigeria" in Google are unfortunately not going to find Wikivoyage at all, at this point. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : I understand JuliasTravels's point about common spelling mistakes for non-native users, but as far as I can tell the Wikivoyage search engine would return the correct article in the first result e.g. https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?search=Nigerea&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go . Given that the search engine is effective, I see no reason why we should entertain misspellings. The other argument is that when other contributors are creating links, a misspelling for Nigerea (a slightly different example) would appear as a valid article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition, we should have a policy specifically disallowing redirects based on "common misspellings". It's an exceedingly slippery slope and we're seeing more and more of this type of redirect on this page. AFAIC the answer is the same in every case: delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikivoyage:Deletion policy notes that redirects should be created for common misspellings. Responding to the comment that "Given that the search engine is effective, I see no reason why we should entertain misspellings", not all users will be searching - some will create a misspelled link while editing articles, some will type the place name directly into the URL, and there may be other ways that misspellings creep into our guides, so there are plenty of valid reasons for keeping the existing policy of using redirects for misspellings. For what it's worth, w:Wikipedia:Redirect also recommends creating redirects for common misspellings. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Clarifying my comment above, I've got no objection to deleting this redirect if the argument is that it isn't a common misspelling, but I oppose deletion based on the argument that we should not redirect misspellings. The latter argument is both counter to current site policy, and would offer no benefits while harming site usability. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Once it was shown to me that this is not a rare misspelling, I was convinced that we should keep the redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as comments are now being made arguing that this should be deleted since it is not a common misspelling I'm ambivalent as to whether it is kept or redirected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does it really do much harm having "too many" redirects? --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This should not have become a debate about 'Should misspelling redirects be delated?'. It should be solely about whether Negeria an appropriate redirect given that it is a spelling mistake that is not particularly common. There is no conflict with existing policy. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hold on. Indeed. Some of the suggestions made here are quite the wrong way around. The (very) long-standing policy is that we do create redirects for common misspellings and typo's, and policy also says As a general rule redirection pages should not be deleted. The long standing practice here (as well as on other Wikimedia projects) is, that we delete them when they particularly not meet that qualification. Deletion outcome on a few redirects does not constitute a general consensus to change policy. It's fine to discuss the question if this is a likely spelling mistake, but voting against misspellings in general is contrary to current policy. While any one of us may not have seen it, I think the links I gave above make it clear that it's not an unlikely mistake at all. For the record also, @Andrewssi2; the search engine is unpredictable. While it may recognize Nigerea, it does not recognize (randomly chosen) Nageria or Nygeria as a mistake. That is indeed the main underlying problem. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My own judgement call based on the links JuliasTravels provided, as well as a forced Google search on 'Negeria' is that this is not a common spelling mistake (in as much as one could find an example of any English word misspelled on the internet somewhere). Since this is a subjective view, I can only leave to the votes of others as to whether it is shared or not. Andrewssi2 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with misspelling redirects is that the question then becomes what defines a "common" misspelling? In the absence of some set standard, it's a slippery slope. Redirects may be cheap, but there has to be some defined limit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let me try this again: I think that, in the case of redirects, the presumption should be to keep, rather than delete, in the absence of a consensus to delete. The reason is that, as the trope goes, redirects are cheap. And furthermore, I think that JuliasTravels has established that, even if there is no torrent of searches for "Negeria", there are enough of them for this redirect to be useful. If the result of this Vfd is to delete a redirect that could be useful for as many as 2-3 people a month, I will regret starting it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Negeria" also appears to be the verb "to drink" in Lithuanian , so surely that means that not everyone who types that word is even looking for the country. I don't really think this is a very common misspelling. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you undid the archiving of the discussion. It's a judgement call in the end; what's common enough? If your point is that not all searches for Negeria are looking for the country, you're surely right and that is obvious, although I would argue that the Lithuanian word "to drink" is not likely the reason for all the hits on Negeria on the English language Wikipedia. We've seen some written news sources in English misspelling the word, so it does occur as a misspelling for Nigeria. The question is simply, if some people will benefit from having the redirect, even when it's not a huge number, and if there's no direct benefit in actively deleting it, do we want to do it? It has been pointed out that redirects are in principle not deleted, so contrary to regular vfd's, it makes sense to look for a consensus to delete. In any case, User:Saqib made the call, and while it's perhaps not in line with your opinion this time, it seems unwarranted to undo it. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there are outstanding points, they should be addressed before closing any discussion. It was not because my views don't align, it's because the judgement call really shouldn't be made when the last addition to the discussion was left unaddressed. Ignoring users or added information/concerns/comments is not proper protocol in gaining consensus or "making judgement calls". I also put a note on Saqib's Talk Page so that it was clear why I did it. I am not accusing Saqib of foul play, because Saqib was not involved in the discussion, but I don't think an open discussion should be closed when the final statement was an unaddressed comment/point. I didn't add that information as a fun trivia fact, after all.
If you do a search for Negeria on a search engine, many Lithuanian sites do appear, even when the search language is set as English. The opposition to why we would delete such a listing is already quite clear and written in the policy that we don't want to list redirects for every silly way we can think of to misspell a place. If Wikipedia is getting 2 or 3 hits per day for Negeria, that almost certainly means we are getting 0, so I'm not seeing who we're helping.
Contrary to what you believe, I don't care if the results of the discussion end up being the same nor is it because it is MY comment that was last that I feel this way. I would feel the same if YOU made a point that we all decided to ignore as well. It is easier for me to keep track of my own writings, of course, but if I did notice it happen to someone else, I would try to address their concern myself or question why we closed the discussion without addressing their point. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:ChubbyWimbus: I guess we're suppose to close a VfD when its been two weeks and nobody any longer commenting on it. We're supposed to move on. Or are you suggesting that we should keep such a VfD open and lets wait for people to chime in? While there's no consensus to keep the redirect but so far the arguments presented are in favour of keeping it and so I ensured that my decision complies with the project goal. --Saqib (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the past when the result of a VFD isn't clear it has been customary to at least give a warning that without further comment it will be closed, with an additional note as to what the result of the VFD would likely be (keep or delete). -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, ChubbyWimbus - I don't mean to accuse you of anything, and I'm sorry if it came across as if I wanted to. I guess you expected some kind of feedback to your information, where it just seemed a piece of valid information to me and probably others. I'm not sure how we can address your point, other than confirming we have read it. I'm sure Saqib read it, before closing, and took it into consideration. In any case, let's give it another few days then, in case anyone has anything else to add. Best, JuliasTravels (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that we were all initially assuming that a search for "Negeria" could ONLY mean someone was looking for the country of Nigeria and basing our judgments on how common a misspelling it was based on that, so when I found that it's actually a word in another language, it seemed relevant and worth further consideration to recognize that search terms for or including "negeria" are not always searches for the country at all and given that, do people still think it is common enough to warrant keeping? That is what I was hoping/expecting to see at least a few responses to. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found some evidence that 'Negeria' is a (very small) location in Indonesia. In any case (as recorded above) I don't believe it is common enough spelling mistake to warrant keeping, but ultimately going with consensus and putting it to rest seemed the best way forward. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an admin who hasn't commented in this discussion, I see no consensus to keep this redirect. Our policy in the absence of a consensus to keep is to delete, so that is how I would close this discussion. If there's a compelling reason to keep, speak up soon. Powers (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B.: A strict reading of the policy above would have the 'default to delete' convention apply only to articles, templates, and images. One could make an argument that redirects are treated differently because they're relatively harmless. I would be open to that argument. Powers (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reading of the above discussion is that there is no consensus either way and the "keep" arguments aren't more compelling than the "delete" arguments. As a result I'd suggest closing it as a "delete" unless anyone feels that is a misinterpretation of the above discussion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome: Deleted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2016&oldid=4924753"