Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 12

April 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2013

Male Escort Awards
. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 23. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

TheAmazingAtheist



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * → Jokela school shooting (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Previously deleted in March 2009 at Articles for deletion/TheAmazingAtheist, this page was recreated shortly afterwards and turned into a redirect. It's currently fully-protected so I'm going to ask an admin to tag it. This redirect is not useful: TheAmazingAtheist, a YouTube video blogger, is only tangentially related to the Jokela school shooting, by suggesting the killer should be investigated by the authorities before it happened. That's not a major part of the story, and it's barely even significant to TheAmazingAtheist: he's done plenty of other stuff on the Internet and I imagine doesn't like being primarily associated by Wikipedia with a school shooting. As he currently doesn't meet notability guidelines, the redirect should instead be deleted, as was the consensus at the original AFD. Robofish (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd support deletion of this. I don't even remember redirecting it (nor that my redirect was reverted as vandalism!) Protonk (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support delete for reasons above Charon123able (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you can speedy delete this as an attack page, since it implies that he was the shooter. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all, and I would decline a speedy deletion on those grounds. It doesn't imply anything other than that he is somehow connected with the event - he could equally have been a victim or one of those threatening copycat attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I suspect that when I redirected this back in 2009 I was trying to prevent AfDed content from being restored rather than offering any sort of opinion on the subject matter. This person is not primarily noted for events relating to the school shooting, as noted in the nomination, and therefore the redirect doesn't make a great deal of sense. This is clearly not an attack page though. Hut 8.5 16:04, 13 April 2013 (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.

The Mojo



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was retarget to Mojo. JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * → The Mojos (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine according to WP:R. "The Mojo" could refer to many of, or none of the articles listed under Mojo and certainly can't exclusively claim to be specific to The Mojos. 130.88.185.228 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The redirect name is ambiguous and confusing. Apart from the possibility of a typo, I can't see why "The Mojo" should redirect to "The Mojos"; it's an unlikely redirect target. Charon123able (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Mojo. Easily a better target, although I can't see why we would outright delete it. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the disambiguation page at Mojo per ""The Mojo" could refer to many of, or none of the articles listed under Mojo". No reason why deleting it would benefit anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd contest the ""The Mojo" could refer to many of, or none of the articles listed under Mojo" claim. It looks to me like "The Mojo" doesn't refer to any of them. Searching for "the mojo" (with the definite article "the") indicates to me that someone is looking for something a fair bit more specific that just "mojo". When you look at all the possible redirect targets on Mojo, the only one that really makes sense in context is the current target The Mojos. And as I have mentioned earlier, "Apart from the possibility of a typo, I can't see why "The Mojo" should redirect to "The Mojos"". A redirect from The Mojo to Mojo doesn't serve a purpose... and now Mojo doesn't sound like a word anymore... Charon123able (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well for starters, typos are very good subjects for redirects, but in addition to The Mojos it's mostly like use as a search term is likely for The Mojo Men, but several of the other entries could reasonably be searched for with the definite article. Redirects are so WP:CHEAP that they are normally kept unless they're mare harmful than beneficial. This redirect is not inaccurate or misleading, it's not in the way of anything, and there are no BLP or similar issues so it's not harmful at all. As there is no clear primary topic for it, it's better targetted at the dab page than a single page imho. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me WP:CHEAP, I haven't seen that one yet. That said I still don't understand the logic behind the redirect. "The Dojo" and "The Mofo" would be equally likely typos and as things stand, seemingly obvious typo redirects like "The Decemberist" don't always lead to articles like "The Decemberists". It seems impractical (in my opinion) to have a redirect each time somebody adds "the" before a word especially when the "Did you mean:..." will probably throw up what they're looking for anyway. Surely we should redirect for "a mojo" too? I understand it isn't harmful and I've accepted that odds are you're going to keep it because of that, but I can't understand why it was made in the first place especially when the stats show it's never received more than background noise. Just to clarify in case this sounds aggressively defensive, I'm just after logic, I'm still a Young Wiki Adult and am only asking questions to develop my understanding that doesn't (in my head) make sense yet. Thanks Charon123able (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Never apologise for wanting to learn or for asking questions about stuff you don't understand! The answer about why we have some redirects from typos and not others is largely based on what people have created - in the past someone has obviously thought creating "The Mojo" was useful but nobody has felt that way about "a Mojo" (probably because the definite article ("the)" is more likely to be found in article titles than the indefinite article ("a"/"an")). Your point about background noise is a good one, and it shows that this is of borderline usefulness, but in such situations we generally keep the ones that have been created as they're not doing any harm, but discourage the the creation of others. Substituting random letters, e.g "Mofo" or "Dojo" will probably be deleted or retargretted as very unlikely and unrelated to the subject. There are many ways that people navigate Wikipedia, for example the internal search engine, external search tools (e.g. specific Wikipedia search tools, Google, etc), bookmarks, searching from the URL bar, direct entry of the URL, direct links from within Wikipedia or from elsewhere, etc. Only for some of these methods do things like search suggestions and "did you mean" work (not relevant to this redirect, but it's worth noting that some of these are case sensitive and some are case insensitive). All this means that we can't be sure what a person who tries to view an article we don't have will see (some will be invited to create the page, others will see "did you mean", some will get search results (with no guarantee what those results will be), some will get just a note that what they're looking for doesn't exist), so relying on search results to get people where they want to be is not a good thing (and also rather unfriendly). If any of that still doesn't make sense, please say so and I or someone else will try again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to mojo -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Mojo, per all valid reasons above. Steel1943  (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (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.