Talk:Raly

I mean, I know were trying to redirect for common mistakes, but is this really common? More like a typo >.> --Naut 23:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

but this makes it easier for people to search for it, and this is what we want. correct? also, yes I have seen it spelled this way in forums by posters Venom20 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm amused by your sarcastic support of our cause. No objection. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm sure more words will get misspelled, and don't worry, I'll be right there to not correct the spelling mistake but create an entire new page glorifying it for a redirect. Venom20 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means; correct the fellow's spelling mistake. The problem is that we can't correct everyone/some people will just keep misspelling, even after being corrected. But even those people should be able to access the Wiki, fully. --Naoroji 07:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is just plain silly. It's one thing to make redirects for commonly misspellings, but it is completely different to make a redirect page for every single plausible spelling. Hell, might as well create redirects for peploe who selpl lkie tihs or lic dis. If we do that, then we'll just be making possibly 100 redirects for 5 articles. Which is completely redundant and... idiotic. That's why it has been - to my knowledge - restricted to common misspellings. And honestly, for new terms especially, there is no common misspelling. -- Konig/talk 09:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All redirects from misspelled words is silly. do we have a team of people who will now designate what is common and what isn't? Venom20 13:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the deletion? Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Venom, obviously. --Naoroji 13:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Venom, obviously? you don't have to use the tone. I have no problems with the deletion of this misspelled word as long as all others go with it. If the others don't go, then it would seem that certain misspelled words are favoured over others, which is even more ridiculous then creating them in the first place. Also only deleting one of the several, would appear prejudicial. Venom20 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Reset indent) It opens up the potential to have thousands (millions of redirects). For the article "Guild Wars 2" we would have to make 8640 redirects just for when people scrambled up the word, and maybe accidentally hit 1 or 3 instead of 2...Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, which is why this should have never started in the first place. Since a delete tag was added to this article, I took the liberty of assisting and added the same delete tag to the other misspelled articles. I hope this will be the end of the idea. Venom20 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Venom...listen to yourself...their usefulness was NEVER ever in question...they are common misspellings, especially since they have also become redirects on GWW. At risk of encouraging you, they why not delete Ele, Warr and every other "misspelling/abbreviated" redirect... Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An abbreviation is an incomplete word and as such is misspelled by very definition. I have no issues with abbreviations as they are indeed beneficial so that one does not need to type the word in it's entirety; however, that being said, if one is going to take the time to type out a word in its entirety, then one may as well spell it correctly. If one has difficulty spelling a word, one can use a document creating program and an english spellcheck, or one can install an english dictionary for firefox, or one can even use google to get a correct spelling. Venom20 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And you believe the casual user of the wiki would even go to such lengths? That's quite naive, to be honest. Also, Venom, about my previous comment: There was no tone :). I merely added the 'obviously', because Aquadrizzt seemingly missed you, while it was quite obvious you were against. --Naoroji 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you have misinterpreted any and all arguments. I am all for deletion so long as all misspelled words are treated equally. Therefore, I am not obviously against deletion, but in fact for it. In regards to "great lengths", as you so put it, most browsers have a search engine box located within their browser (by default, look in the top right hand corner). It is not difficult to search for a word. Also, if one is going to be posting and contributing to an english wiki, then it is most beneficial to ensure that your browser is currently using an english dictionary for spellcheck. Venom20 14:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"... all misspelled words are treated equally."

If it bothers you, make a new project. If you said you have no problems with abbreviations, but an incorrect full word is unacceptable, how can you say you want all misspellings to be treated the same? -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An abbreviation is not a word, so to compare it to a misspelled word is to compare a car to a horse to determine which ones have the most seeds. It would be an idiotic feat. Let us consider ressurect, is this a word or an abbreviation? Well, an abbreviation is a shortened form of a word for ease. Since ressurect is in fact of equal length to its true word resurrect, it cannot be one. So it must be a misspelled word. But not all things that are shorter can be considered an abbreviation, for instance, raly. Is this an abbreviation or a misspelled word? I will save you the trouble, it is a misspelled word. And as for a previous comment by sparky, I hope you are able to distinguish between a word and an abbreviation. If you , or anyone else finds this task daunting, feel free to consult abbreviation and word from wikipedia. If you need a better source of information that you would feel more reliable, please use a search engine. Personally I feel that having misspelled pages creates a messy and sloppy, not to mention uneducated, form of a wiki, but this of course is a personal though and obviously not the feelings if the collective. Based on all previous arguments, I have yet to see anyone explain or define what is common in terms of a misspelled word. Just because one or more people have yet to see a misspelled form, does this mean it should not exist? I have never seen the word ressurect before yesterday. I have seen resurrect and resurect, but never once with 2 s's. I put forth that since I have never seen this, it is not commonplace. Venom20 16:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Personally I feel that having misspelled pages creates a messy and sloppy...form of a wiki" I don't understand why this is messy. Once you create it, you will probably never see it again. It does not take up a significant amount of space. (19 bytes? Oh please. The delete tag is between nine and ten times the size of the page itself.) "not to mention uneducated" I don't think education is our job. If you feel the need to educate people in typing or spelling, this isn't the place to go about it; it'd be bothersome, inefficient, and likely ineffective. People will come here because they're playing a game (or, for now, looking forward to playing it), not to be told how to spell things or to be forced to spell correctly to find information. Had I the time or patience to do it myself, I would make enough misspelling redirects to rival Google's "did you mean" function.

If I haven't made myself transparent enough, I oppose the deletion. I don't see any negative effect from creating "excessive" numbers of redirects except the wiki-drama it's creating right now. (And honestly, what doesn't cause wiki-drama around here?)

@Sparky: with a little less sarcasm, I think such a group would be fairly helpful. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects shouldn't be made in bulk for misspellings and the like. There's a far more efficient, easy, effective, and possibly quicker way of sorting this all out - installing the proposed software extension to improve the search function itself. If it's the same thing Wikipedia uses, we'll have no need to manually recreate a "did you mean" message ourselves. pling 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't understand why this is messy. Once you create it, you will probably never see it again. It does not take up a significant amount of space. (19 bytes? Oh please. The delete tag is between nine and ten times the size of the page itself)": that applies to pretty much anything, though. Someone could use the same reasoning for an article about the Muppets, since having one would not really have any drawback, yet it's something we would delete as it would be considered unnecessary to the wiki.

IMO, we should keep only the redirects for mistakes commonly made by the community, and remove everything else. Which means, instead of proactively making redirects for words people barely use today (such as this one), waiting in order to see the kind of misspelling (or abbreviation) people use often and then making redirects for those. Erasculio 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have wasted enough of my own time attempting to maintain the professionalism of the official Guild Wars 2 wiki. I see now that I am by myself in the argument. I also must apologize as I am unfamiliar with the "back end". I assumed that creating more pages to maintain was more resource consuming for the server than only creating pages that are actually nessecary. Now all we need is a way to determine which mistakes are more commonplace than others? Everyone is saying raly is less commonplace than ressurect. I still have yet to see this. Again, I am apologizing to everyone on this wiki for attempting to to keep the bar raised in this wiki in regards to the professionalism that others may come to see. Venom20 18:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that "wolrd" is commonly used. Though redirecting it to world would be rather... dumb? (Redirect to Server would be better) /random ge4ce 18:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that with wolrd, it's in fact a typo xD. But words like ressurect are misspelled because people don't know how to spell it correctly (language barrier). So, should that be the distinction? --Naoroji 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this word "professionalism" gets used - we're not here to be professional, even if we are the "official" wiki (which basically only means ArenaNet host the servers and occasionally comment). I prefer seeing the words functional, effective, useful and easy. pling 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is true that "easy-to-use" is much better than "professional." Even at that, how does helping people who never learned to spell some archaic word make the wiki unprofessional? That sounds pretty professional to me. (Note: Venom20, I only commented because you contradicted yourself in your previous statement that "an abbreviation is an incomplete word and as such is misspelled by very definition" (then further contradicted this statement). Try not to be so defensive as to groundlessly insult me.) -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If and when I create a redirect for a misspelling, I search for that particular spelling on GW2G, its a fairly active community site with a large sampling group. If you get more than 5 people who spell it like that, make the redirect. 'raly' is a silly redirect because no one will seriously try to spell it like that.--Corsair@Yarrr 04:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@Pling: I'm not familiar with the discussion on that topic, but if it will help the search function in this way, then I'm all for using it in place of then-excessive redirects. --Kyoshi (Talk) 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)