Talk:Extremespeed (move)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search

This page was deleted for no good reason at all. Deleted because it "encourages bad spelling" when you have not spelt it wrong at all, you have simply failed to place the hump as required which is quite rare. Most people will make this mistake no matter how good their "spelling" is. I request this page be recreated, however I don't believe I have permission to formally request it. Pokepro97 (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

At the time, Extreme Speed was written in CamelCase. Having Extremspeed (move) as a redirect would've mislead users into thinking that that was how it was spelt and thus would've "encouraged bad spelling". At least, that's why I think it was deleted. But now that the moves been renamed, I can't see this being a problem.--ForceFire 06:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Camelcase is another term for a term having a "hump" as I stated. It doesn't discourage the incorrect spelling, it helps alert the user to it without annoying them. I always notice when I am redirected (like every pokemon or move on this wiki...) and take note of it. If people are playing older games where Extreme_Speed is still called ExtremeSpeed and they fail to remember the hump when typing it in, they should be redirected to the correct page for their convinience.- unsigned comment from Pokepro97 (talkcontribs)
I still find this unnecessary. Searches are case insensitive, so ExtremeSpeed (move) will be used even if you just search "extremespeed (move)". Moreover, redirects from misspelled names should be reserved for links without the parenthetical disambiguatory phrase; this is only used for link templates. Therefore, having the redirect "Extremespeed (move)" serves no purpose but to cause anyone who incorrectly types {{m|Extremespeed}} to have their link show up as blue, so it only encourages people to type it in wiki articles with incorrect formatting. --SnorlaxMonster 09:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
SnorlaxMonster makes good points. This redirect does seem very unnecessary. Deleting it seems to have no downsides, while keeping it does. Tiddlywinks (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)