Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Vermiis Mysteriis

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De Vermiis Mysteriis

I have come to believe that this article was inappropriately titled from the start (a typo?). All my sources indicate that the correct spelling is "De Vermis Mysteriis" – hence, the redirect I placed in the article. However, I don't believe that the improper spelling should appear in Wikipedia because it may mislead readers into believing that this is an alternate spelling. It is not! I can provide a list of sources with the correct spelling if necessary. ^Gate2Valusia^{Oh?..(contribs)} 08:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. This is a title of a fictional book. I'm not familiar with Lovecraft's work any more, but the de in the title would be correct. It means "about", and mysteriis is ablative plural case of mysterium, making the title "On (or about) the mysteries of the worm". "Vermis mysteriis" might also make sense, but would be an unusual title for a book. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the problem is the double "i" in "Vermiis" – that's why the title is incorrect. What probably happened was that the original editor clicked on a red link with a typo in the title. The request here is to delete this particular redirect.
    To further clarify: the spelling used in Cthulhu mythos fiction is "De Vermis Mysteriis"; thus, "De Vermiis Mysteriis" constitutes an invalid redirect. "De Vermis Mysteriis" is the spelling that appears in the Robert Bloch short story that introduces the book, "The Shambler from the Stars" (written in 1935).
    ^Gate2Valusia^{Oh?..(contribs)} 09:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Duh! You're right, I completely misread. On googling, I find that this erroneous spelling occurs some 800 times. So Keep. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• I think I remember that this (evidently false) title might have crept into at least the german translations (and maybe the french ones, too), especially regarding the Ctulhu-RPG...I'll have a look at it tonight, and tell you more tomorrow..for now I would opt for a keep for the redirect, as per Tony Sidaway Lectonar 11:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm positive now...the german version uses the double 'i' (at least the translation I own)..so it's a definite keep for the redirect from me Lectonar 08:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep redirect to Arcane literature (Cthulhu mythos). Redirects are always appropriate for common misspellings or variants, especially in foreign language words. Speedy keep because VfD prevents redirect from operating. Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect - misspellings are often used for redirects, and this rule should apply doubly in the case of the Cthulhu mythos. Having typed a whole list of namde of Lovecraftian articles recently, I can tell you that it is very easy to get the spellings wrong! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the easy way to deal with these is just redirect to the right spelling/main article whatever - does no harm and is a lot easier than a VfD. A good portion of stuff on VfD should just have been turned into redirects when originally found. --zippedmartin 11:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understood the nominator, he explicitly objected for the different spelling to be used at all (although you're obviously right in general), and this VfD prevents the redirect from workong, as quoted above. Cheers :) Lectonar 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"should just have been turned into redirects", as in, rather than VfD. Stuff that gets a lot of keep/delete wrangling based on notability, is often really a 10 second redirect job if handled sensibly by the nominator. --zippedmartin 15:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.