Talk:Thunderfoot

Misspelling

User:Wbm1058 re removing WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I initially was going to create the dab without the primary topic (hence my creation summary "create dab - the current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirect is overwhelmingly popular so keep target and can be challenged later 1. 00 not oo 2. the only article use of the redirect being incorrect"), but once I'd assembled the other entries and looked at view stats it was overwhelmingly popular (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and decided to leave for a proper discussion for later. From your removal, are you stating that we don't have primary topics from misspellings? (the hatnote removal on the article). As this is a leet issue rather than a misspelling, I'm wondering what precedents we have, and what serves readers best. My gut feeling would be we'd treat leet similar to diacritics, rather than misspellings? Widefox; talk 15:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox:

This name isn't registering viral page views. I don't really see that there is a primary topic for "Thunderfoot".

"misspelled term" links here hatnotes populate Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, demanding action in order to remove the page from this error report. That means removing the hatnote, or at minimum removing the misspelled term from the hatnote. Saying that something links to a page implies that something is correct, not an error. We don't install intentional links to misspelled words.

I would liken leet to MOS:TM: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words or letters" In other words, this individual is simply branding himself by using leet. MOS:TM suggests that we don't honor this non-standard variant, and say that Thunderfoot is his (correct) nickname, which he stylizes as "Thunderf00t". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear primary topic for "Thunderfoot", so I would leave things as they are. Even the redirect "Thunderf00t" has very few views, which suggests that not many readers who find this page click through to read about Phil Mason. Certes (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wbm1058, my initial assessment of article popularity was based on Phil Mason getting ~100/day - an order of magnitude more than the others [1] I didn't look at the fine points (of the ambiguous term) of redirect use and pseudonym (with or without leet), and also put emphasis on this being an existing redirect with no discussion for removing the primary topic

Yes exactly "Thunderfoot" (styled "Thunderf00t"). It was me that tagged the redirects as misspellings, do we have anything more appropriate as I think we're agreeing the leet isn't as misspelling and un-leeted is just de-stylised, so also not a misspelling?

Certainly now it looks like the redirect use is minimal compared to the article use then happy to not call it primary by usage for this term. Suppose this is just more clear now I've created the dab and I was just being over cautious, as I said I was initially creating the dab at the redirect removing the primary topic and then due to pageviews of articles decided to keep the existing redirect. My redirect tagging seems the only thing needing fixing. Widefox; talk 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a {{R from stylization}} but I think that's meant for cases where the title matches the redirect, i.e. that template would be appropriate if the article we're redirecting to were called "Thunderfoot". Certes (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged Thunderf00t with {{R from pseudonym}}, which matches the characterization given in the lead of the Phil Mason article. Thanks for creating the needed disambiguation page. Before that, the redirect was justified because it was a WP:TWODABS with Thunderfoot (wrestler), but after the dab was created it's become clear there isn't a primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that redirect I'd tagged alt name anyhow so no big difference. It must have been the former redirect Thunderfoot, which doesn't need fixing now it's gone. Widefox; talk 20:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]