Talk:Nortwest Airways

This is actually a typo of "Northwest Airways" - the original name for "Northwest Airlines." So this is a plausible redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is silly beyond words. How many ways can you misspell Northwest? Hundreds of ways and should there be a redirect for each one?- William 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as a misspelling is plausible it's completely allowed as plausible misspellings are an entire category of redirects.

Wikipedia:Speedy#Redirects says that "implausible typos or misnomers." are targeted under R3, and those most have been recently created. The redirect really stems from 2010.

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting says that "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect."

I saw a misspelling used by a user on a discussion forum. I thought "okay, it's plausible! It's just one letter!"

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you'd look slightly, you would notice this page was deleted and then you re-added it. Look at the history.[1]-

Well, yes, because the deleting administrator said that he would not interfere if I did so. Please keep edit summaries in mind. If you still wanted to challenge this page, you use "Redirects for discussion" - It's there for a reason! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is a plausible redirect for the original airline name, "Northwest Airways" (the airline's name changed to "Northwest Airlines" in the 1930s). Plausible redirects are clearly allowed and encouraged on here. --WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop littering my talk page and stop editing what I write.- William 19:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where have I "edited what you wrote"? (Diffs would be nice)

You're blind. Look at what you did in this edit[2] of yours.- William 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. It must have been a "edit conflict" - Because to contest a speedy I needed to have it placed on the talk page, and the process may have overwritten your first reply. I did not intend to remove comments. I do not remove comments like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This belongs at "Redirects for discussion" where there is a true venue for discussion

Don't use "speedy" except in obvious deletion cases. This isn't an obvious case.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a obvious case. A redirect page for a potential typo is absurd. One editor agrees already.- William 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on my interpretations of how speedied are handled, "redirect page for a potential typo" is precisely what's allowed and permitted. One editor may agree with your point of view, that doesn't warrant a speedy.

A "redirect page for a potential typo" can't be speedied unless it's implausible. If you want to challenge it, it must be challenged under "redirects for discussion" - And I will open the discussion myself, if you want.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI - "Editor who keeps reverting work, and shopping for sympathetic administrators." - It's not inappropriate to "SHOP" if one wants a wider audience, i.e. taking it to AFD or to a noticeboard. The consensus of the many overweighs the few. It would be inappropriate shopping if you go from, say, one group to a separate group, but make no attempt to go to a wider audience.

One doesn't HAVE to do a speedy in every instance. Why have things be decided now? Just wait and let the community decide. Let many people see it, and make decisions.

"Work" (being speedy rationale tags) will get reverted if the speedy rationale does not describe the actual situation. Speedy deletion should be a conservative, careful process. When there is a doubt, use "Redirects for discussion"

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)