File:White i in purple 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. There is a general consensus that misspelling redirects in the template namespace need to meet a higher bar than those in the article namespace, but few of the keep comments attempted to address this.
It was suggested that a bot fixing template mispellings would benefit from the existence of this redirect but that was countered by others noting that the presence of a redirect would either not be required or would require the creation of a great many similar redirects. Any such redirects would need to be discussed as a class in the context of a specific bot, which is hypothetical at this point and, based on this discussion, consensus for its existence cannot be guaranteed. Taken all together I find that the arguments for deletion are stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4 arrived at a consensus to relist the RfD because most participants in the previous discussion apparently didn't recognize that this is a redirect from a misspelling, not a joke. What should be examined here is whether such a redirect is useful. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 19:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete again. Typo template redirects should not exist. We don't want Wikitext filled with typos. Typo redirects are for the purpose of navigation by readers, not for use by experienced editors. Editors should preview to make sure they haven't made any typos - if they don't, then that's their issue, redirects to clean up the one-in-a-million typo are completely unnecessary when it will be corrected by the next person who views the page. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Implausible, unused and pointless per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 10#Template:Ctie book, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cite jorunal and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute book. Such misspellings should be corrected at source not via redirect to prevent confusion (reason for deletion #2) and avoid the risk of making it unreasonably difficult (reason for deletion #1) for bots, automated systems and searches to deal effectively with templated citations. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I have explained at multiple forums how this template is useful for readers (it displays a rendered citation instead of an ugly red link), which satisfies guideline #5 at WP:R#KEEP. The plausibility of this typo is easily demonstrated by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Database_reports/Transclusions_of_non-existent_templates&oldid=1020521563 its appearance in this report of redlinked templates]. Template redirects from typos are easily and regularly fixed by bots and gnomes, which is why there are often zero transclusions.{{pb}}The guiding principles of RFD say {{tq|Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.}} I have demonstrated that this template redirect meets the guidelines listed there (namely, it is a likely misspelling, and it is useful), so either the people arguing for "Delete" without citing equally valid consensus guideline text should have a very high bar to get over, or the guiding principles or guidelines need to be changed. {{pb}}If this template is to be deleted, that means that the guideline text at WP:R#DELETE, and WP:R#KEEP, as well as the documentation of {{tl|R from misspelling}}, is invalid with respect to template space. I propose postponing a decision on this RFD until a well advertised discussion is held about changing those guidelines. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (expanded 03:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC))
- Template:Cite Sons, Template:Cote web and Template:Cite mixmijsd cijfdmcijrfmcijfrmcijfrnfijrfnifjfrmjfifweb also appear in that list of redlinked templates. Such templates appear in the list regularly: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Database_reports/Transclusions_of_non-existent_templates&oldid=1022967171 cite jweb], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Database_reports/Transclusions_of_non-existent_templates&direction=prev&oldid=1022967171 Template:Cite The best Dallas rapper! tweet], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Database_reports/Transclusions_of_non-existent_templates&direction=prev&oldid=1022691329 cite wev], and that's just the last 48 hours. It is absurd to create redirects for every instance of mistyping. Just correct the typo or undo the vandalism. DrKay (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is a straw man. I am not advocating the creation of redirects that are clearly related to vandalism or incompetence. This discussion is about likely typos made by otherwise competent editors, for which more than 100 redirects already exist in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{re|Jonesey95}} indeed, {{t|R from misspelling}} should not apply to non-substituted templates in template-space. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- This would represent a change to the current guideline; I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. All are welcome there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- One way I think redirects like this one could be useful is that if it is transcluded, a (new) bot detects the template name misspelling and replaces it with the target template. If this redirect is deleted, a redlink can often remain unnoticed for months or even years, so I view this as the best solution. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
:*{{reply to|J947}} We already have all the bots and behind the scenes machinery to implement something like this - it should be fairly simple to do and shouldn't require any real work. The easiest way of doing this would be to create Template:Cite web/typo as a wrapper that just passes any parameters given to it to a cite web template, set it to be automatically substituted only using {{tl|Always substitute}}, then redirect any plausible typos for cite web to it. This is how we deal with other common template conversions, e.g. {{tl|Internetquelle}} redirects to {{tl|Cite web/German}} which converts the parameters and template name to English and is automatically substituted by a bot. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
::*I'm pretty sure it's easier than that. A bot can look for any instances of template redirects that are tagged with {{tl|R from misspelling}} and replace the typo with the correct redirect target. For example, if {{tl|cute news}} is transcluded in an article (and rendering as a valid citation, to the benefit of readers and editors alike), the bot would simply change the "u" to an "i", resulting {{tl|cite news}}, and would not touch the template's parameters. No fancy substing needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Not only not a likely typo, but barely even a plausible one - if your fingers are in the wrong place so as to type u instead of i, you're also going to type b instead of n. WP:R already forbids this redirect; we don't need to change it to make it even more explicit. There are exactly zero similar redirects in tthe template namespace except ones created by this editor, and already on RFD, and already headed toward strong delete consensuses. —Cryptic 04:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just a few thoughts here: I think that it's more likely for the finger to slide than for the hands to move position considering the standard indentations on {{key|f}} and {{key|j}} on the keyboard. Also considering that not all people touch type and the fairly sizeable amount of usage that one-place typo redirects receive normally, I think that your premise is interesting but flawed. Also, I'm not sure how WP:R forbids this redirect: some part of the page may discourage its creation, but that's not the same as encouraging its deletion or forbidding it. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. {{tl|R from misspelling}} redirects are for the benefit of uncertain readers, not of editors who mistype. Redlinked template names or fields are a non-problem, they jump out at you on previewing, and any few that slip through get corrected by anyone interested enough to look at the citation (or even a passing gnome who notices the error message). What next? {{tl|bite cook}}? Narky Blert (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for_discussion/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute book. If a new bot task is adopted for fixing typos in template evocations that would require the existence of this redirect, then for the task to be useful there would also be the need for the creation of redirects for all typos that are at least as plausible as this one, and there are thousands of them. I don't think this is going to be practical. – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2021 (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.
