Talk:tedium

I've just noticed that there was an English article tædium - a spelling I've never seen before. Its definitions matched what I would expect for "tedium" but it didn't give "tedium" as an alternative spelling.

Now "tædium" has been replaced with a redirect to "tedium". "tedium" has not been changed to offer "tædium" as an alternative spelling.

I've been under the impression that it's not our general policy to overwrite articles with redirects. Some may dispute this but I can see no point whatsoever in overwriting one without then amending the redirected-to article to include what was in the now deleted article. The fact that the now deleted article also had no information on the new spelling was also a mark against it but no cause to do what's been done.

I urge anybody who knows about the word/spelling "tædium" to either reinstate that article or incorporate information on that former spelling in the article for the currect spelling. &mdash; Hippietrail 02:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm so Ncik has invented a "Forms and variants" heading as a kind of "informative" redirect. Paul G has used simple "uninformative" redirects. Though I'm not 100% sold on the former idea, the latter idea has the side-effect that you can't add redirect pages to categories which means you can put the modern spelling in the "English words with diacritics or ligatures" category - which looks totally wrong because the category will show a word which obviously has no such letters. It's even words if the category link explicitly gives a sorting order. In the case of "æstival" / "estival" the latter spelling was in the category but sorted under "A".


 * I'm going to convert the simple redirects to Ncik's system for now. &mdash; Hippietrail 01:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Redirects also have the problem that the word might exist in another language. So they aren't a general solution anyway. Ncik 30 Apr 2005