Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 5

April 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2010

Langage Learning motivation



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * → Motivation in second language learning (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Dubiously misspelled redirect ("Langage" for "language", "Learning" for learning"), from a dubious search term for an article that is itself fairly dubious. The more correctly spelled redirect Language Learning motivation exists already. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Delete. This was the result of a page move to the correctly spelt title in July 2006 (the page was later moved to the current title in July 2007), so more than sufficient time has passed for mirrors etc, to catch up. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Raep



 * 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. It is a plausible typo for a number of words. So, retargeting it to rape would be confusing. The redirect is not helpful. Ruslik_ Zero 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * → Typographical error (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. Originally created by a 4chan-er to redirect to Rape, then inexplicably redirected to Typographical error. 87.113.38.175 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously it shouldn't go to typo; there are infinite possible typos that could go there, it's not helpful; people don't purposefully make a typo and hope to see the article (although...it would alert people to the fact that they've made a typo...nah). With that out of the way, it shouldn't go back to rape either, it's an equally plausible typo for Reap or Repa. Probably some other stuff too. Too short to be redirected as a typo, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * retarget to rape as an obviously and not that uncommon transposition of the last two letters. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * retarget to rape. All the uses on the first few pages of google web and groups searches fall into two approximately equally common categories. 1. an intentional misspelling of "rape". 2. usernames. The latter are not suitable redirect targets, so the former is the best target. Users arriving there after making a typo of "reap" or other anagrams are no less hindered than in many other cases where we have articles at titles that are anagrams of each other (e.g. Soto and Soot, a typo I made the other day). Note also Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 28, which ended in keep. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not obviously a typo. No. It is. What I mean is, that (to the majority) it's not obviously recognised as an intentional misspelling. The Google hits I get are basically Urban Dictionary, some Encyclopaedia Dramtica thing, and a few obscure usages on obscure websites (which my browser tells me will harm my computer, by the way). The potential here for confusion here outweighs the potential for helpfulness, in my opinion, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - this is the sole contribution of the originator to Wikipedia. As a potential rearrangement of letters, this as much reminiscent of pear as it would be of rape (dyslexics would look at both of these roughly the same way). Granted there is a connection to the latter mentioned by the urban dictionary, which Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source. Normally I'd recommend keeping this as a typo, but this is potentially confusing; so deletion is the better route per WP:RFD. B.Wind (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)