Talk:Einsatzgroupen

This "word" is half German and half English. Does it even exist anywhere in the real world? Rick K 02:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, the point is moot, as the page REDIRECTS to Einsatzgruppen, this word does "exist" for those who write it in an English style, so the REDIRECT helps that. IZAK 04:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have redirect pages at misspellings? john k 08:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Because not everyone is bound to Nazi spelling-conventions. Simple isn't it? IZAK 09:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization is offensive. Rick K 14:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to who, the SS? IZAK 09:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi spelling conventions? You've got to be kidding me. There are all of three google hits for "Einsatzgroupen". This is pointless. john k 16:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

So if there are at least three it means the word exists and deserves a redirect, right? IZAK 09:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, three hits means it's not even a common misspelling. john k 17:05, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

picky, picky, picky! IZAK 06:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6,820 google hits for "Holocost", 852 for "Holocust", 126 for "Holucaust", and so forth. Should these all be redirects as well? john k 06:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely, why not? Are you worried about "wasting paper"? IZAK 04:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Also, none of the hits for "Einsatzgroupen" looks at all reputable. It is simply a misspelling, and should not be a redirect. john k 06:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When is the last time you met a "nice" one? They are all terrible, even the ones spelled right. IZAK 04:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]