File:White x in red rounded square.svg Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
: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) 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely misspelling —swpbT go beyond 14:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - one hit in 90 days. Not evidently useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
::Reaffirming my "delete" !vote subsequent to the attribution discussion below. Will respond further down the thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment for those (like me) who didn't immediately spot the misspelling, the redirect is missing the "un" from the middle of "communications". Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- keep for attribution purposes. This is a result of a page move that happened a week after the page was created in January 2005. Back then merges were only recorded in the history of the original target so we really do need to keep this around. It's fortunate therefore that the redirect is completely harmless and has caused no problems in the nearly 14 years its been around, strongly suggesting it's unlikely to cause any in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Ivanvector. There is no attribution issues at play here. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Have you even read beyond the first sentence of my comment? I just described exactly what the attribution issues are and also explained why the redirect is harmless (and thus there will not be any benefits from deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I read what you believe to be an attribution issue, which I reject. A typo does not require attribution, and there is no significant page history that would need to be preserved per WP:MAD. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so what you meant to say was "there are no contributions that I judge worthy of preserving the attribution for" not "there are no attribution issues", the two are very different. I completely disagree with your value judgement, and that's fine, but presenting it as fact is not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you could provide the relevant policy that backs up your standpoint that a redirect left behind as a result of a page move from this era "needs to be kept around" for attribution purposes? Otherwise, no, there is no difference between what I said and what you feel I meant to say. WP:NOATT states that not everything requires attribution, which is directly contrary to what you say elsewhere, and gives guidance on examples that do not require attribution. Fixing a typo is well below that threshold for attribution. -- Tavix (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Plausible typo, WP:CHEAP, and Thryduulf. In the past four years, there was [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=all-time&pages=Penetration_(telecommications) about one hit every two months], that appears sufficient motivation not to delete, regardless of where exactly the hits came from.
: I also found four instances of this typo here on Wikipedia. Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. It's debatable whether we should have redirects for typos that occur in parenthetical disambiguators at all, and this one isn't even plausible. There's no need to keep the redirect around for attribution as the history is fully available at the post-move title {{-r|Penetration (telecommunications)}} (yes, back then the moves themselves didn't get recorded in the history, but the history did get moved to the new title; the only piece of information that is missing from there is the fact that the page was at a misspelt title for a week, and that's not something we would ever need attribution for). – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- We don't get to pick and choose what we need attribution for and what we don't. Legally we are required to attribute every (non-deleted) edit. Fixing a typo in the page title is at least exactly as important as fixing a typo in the body of the page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting idea, but I think most people would agree that the correction of a typo is not the kind of contribution we need to attribute (see WP:NOATT). – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how you get from that page to not being required to keep attribution for either fixing a typo or moving a page? It's not a quote or a common expression/idiom. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
:* "this one isn't even plausible" You read my rationale for keeping? Paradoctor (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
:**Well, the typo in question is the omission of two consequtive letters. Obviously, it's not completely implausible, but "communication" is a long word and there are about a dozen possible typos of this precise kind; there is an equal number of (more plausible) single-letter omissions, two-letter swaps, and a much higher number of typos involving the substitution of one character with another that is next to it on the keyboard. The total number of typos of that, or higher, level of plausibility is in the hundreds. We wouldn't want to create hundreds of redirects for the typos in each moderately long word. We have to draw the line somewhere. The fact that there have been a few instances on wikipedia of this very typo does not, in my opinion, help it pass as this is a really common word and you would expect at least some of the less plausible typos to be attested here. – Uanfala (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - we generally preserve page histories when there is content requiring attribution, which is not the case here. Prior to RfD there are four edits in the history: one is the correction of an unambiguous error, and the other is a bugfix to remove whitespace. Neither of these are even close to the level of creative expression required for copyright protection, which is generally the threshold for preserving histories for attribution. This was also not an old-style cut-and-paste move: the only edit preceding the move was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penetration_(telecommunications)&oldid=9195515 this one], the page creation, and it is present in the history of the target ({{no redirect|1=Penetration (telecommunications)}}, itself also now a redirect). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is the attribution of the page move itself that will be lost. Moving a page to a new title is a significant act. Disregarding attribution requirements because its inconvenient when deleting a redirect (a deletion that will not bring any benefits) is completely contrary to the spirit Wikipedia and the license if not necessarily the letter of the legal text. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Histmerge if there is stuff to save. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know if there are attribution issues, but this seems like a plausible typo – Google shows 10,500 hits (and 9,780 hits excluding "wikipedia") – and, most importantly, does no harm: there's no risk that it might confuse or mislead the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Having the misspelling inside the brackets makes me think this misspelling is not plausible enough to be a useful redirect title. Deryck C. 10:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think there are attribution issues here, and I don't think this is a useful or likely redirect. I'll add that Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves links to a [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-August/003722.html 2002 email] where moving was turned on (as opposed to copy-and-paste). I think {{u|Thryduulf}} is right that in '05 move logs were still only in the target page history, but notably that entry is missing from the history of {{history|Penetration (telecommunications)}}. I'm not exactly sure what's going on, but this looks like it was actually just created whole-cloth as a redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
: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.
