This is the talk page for Yagh.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.


So this is a redirect which uses a deliberate misspelling of "yahg". Seems to me to fit the very definition of useless. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:57, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, needless redirect. Lancer1289 22:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Concur. We don't have redirects for 'Commander Shepperd', or 'SSV Normandie' or 'bataran', so we don't need this one either. SpartHawg948 22:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I think this could be a very common typo for "Yahg", and the redirect would serve to bring people instantly to the page they really want. I just made the mistake myself, so there's some anecdotal evidence of the redirect's would-be usefulness. -- Dammej (talk) 21:44, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

And sheilds is a very common typo for "shields". Do we need a sheilds redirect? And then there's Commander Shepard. Aka Commander Shepperd, Commander Shepherd, Commander Sheppard, etc. Do we need redirects for them too? Common typos are not a valid reason for redirects. SpartHawg948 05:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I'd argue that they are (a valid reason), if it's a frequent enough occurrence. I'm not trying to incite a war or anything with it, just state that, in at least one instance, this redirect would have helped a user (me), get to precisely what they were searching for. If that's not the case for anyone else (and I have no reason to think so, as no one else has seen fit to comment about it here), then it can be safely deleted, secure in the knowledge that the positive impact of the redirect is/was extremely minor. -- Dammej (talk) 05:50, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Shields is a real word though, only an idiot or someone making a typo that they will notice will make that mistake. Yahg is a different thing altogether. It's a made up word for a made up species and a perfectly reasonable person could search for Yagh when meaning Yahg without being an idiot or making a typo. Note: I accidentally misspelt Yahg Yagh twice while writing that.JakePT 06:13, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
OK... and I'd let the case rest if shields was my only example. But if we have a redirect for 'Yagh', why not redirects for all the various iterations of Commander Shepard that people constantly use, even when on the Commander Shepard page, where it shows them how to spell it? I've seen no evidence that 'yagh' is a more common typo than any of those extremely common ones we don't have redirects for. SpartHawg948 06:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think there's just a difference of opinion here: You give examples of redirects that might exist if we allow this one to exist. I don't see any of those as a problem. If someone created those redirects I wouldn't care, so long as they weren't being used as links in articles. If they help users (mainly through search in my case), I see absolutely no problem with their existence. I'm not advocating that we make make an effort to create redirects for hundreds of misspellings all over the wiki, just that a redirect based solely on a misspelling/typo is not automatically useless.
Would a redirect of this kind have a big negative effect that I'm just not aware of? Because I'll gladly change my tune if there is. -- Dammej (talk) 06:34, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
I just don't see the point of having redirects for typos. To me it just seems silly. I'm not giving redirects that might exist if this one does. You said "I'd argue that they are (a valid reason), if it's a frequent enough occurrence." and "If that's not the case for anyone else (and I have no reason to think so, as no one else has seen fit to comment about it here), then it can be safely deleted". As such, I'm providing examples of misspellings/typos that seem to be much more frequent than this one, which we seem to have survived thus-far without providing redirects for. All I was doing was trying to directly address points you brought up. SpartHawg948 06:40, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well perhaps there was a misunderstanding somewhere. I'm not trying to guess at what misspellings/typos are more frequent than others, that would be pointless. I'm merely voting against this delete proposal to provide empirical evidence that the redirect would have helped at least one user: me (and presumably whoever created it). I doubt we'll convince each other to adopt the other's viewpoint though, so it's probably best to just let the votes tally up. -- Dammej (talk) 06:49, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
And I'll admit, at least part of my rationale is based upon precedent, and upon consistency and what-ifs. It comes with the turf as an admin. Look at it this way: someone creates a redirect for 'batarun' to batarian. I go in and nominate it for deletion, as this would be silly and pointless. Now, the person who creates it counters by pointing to this redirect page. How do I reply? By pointing out that one typo is more common than the other? The rebuttal to that could easily be "well, I made the typo, so it happens" (essentially your and JakePT's points, I believe - "I just made the mistake myself, so there's some anecdotal evidence of the redirect's would-be usefulness." and "Note: I accidentally misspelt Yahg Yagh twice while writing that.") Now, from my standpoint, my hands are tied. I literally cannot push for its deletion, as that would be inconsistent and would go against precedent. I'd be forced to either remain neutral or actually vote against deletion. This is why I tend to oppose things like this, and why I hate the idea of "exceptions to rules" on the site. SpartHawg948 06:55, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
And I can say that I'd be completely ok with that outcome. To me a redirect is only useless if it is absolutely never used. (Or actually hinders a user's ability to find things, yadda yadda). -- Dammej (talk) 07:00, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion period has expired. The result is 3-2 in favor of deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:53, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

So it has! SpartHawg948 20:55, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.