Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WPL

Wikipedia:WPL

For years, WP:WPL functioned as a shortcut to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics before it was overwritten with a disambiguation page. As it stands now, WP:WPL is no longer be useful as a shortcut. Shortcuts are often short, creating some ambiguity, but that is not a problem. For example, a single letter shortcut like WP:A is useful to quickly find Wikipedia:Attribution and I hope no one suggests turning that into a disambiguation page listing a bunch of project pages beginning with the letter A. There is no need to list several WikiProjects that begin with the letter L when the WikiProject Directory can be used for that function. Therefore, I recommend delete and redirecting back to its previous usage and if it is shown that someone is using WP:WPL for usages other than its previous one, I would recommend adding it as a hatnote, which is the usual and most useful way to handle shortcuts like that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not necessarily opposed to that retarget, but the concern I have is with Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. Given the similar, but not identical scopes, how do we distinguish between Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics. On the other hand, I don't necessarily think a disambiguation is a problem for ambiguous shortcuts like this because it should be clear, by the context in which it is used, to which project page the editor was referring. Similarly, likewise to articles, do we have any sort of policies to shortcuts in terms of which becomes the "primary topic," per se? That is, how do we distinguish which gets precedence? Doug Mehus T·C 21:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What User:Dmehus brought up is important. What Wikiproject gets precedence in these single letter cases? Why does WP:WPN go to WikiProject Neopaganism instead of Wikiproject Nebraska or Nigeria? Or WP:WPM going to Wikiproject Mathematics instead of Wikiproject Music or Maps? You're right that the current practice is redirecting with a hatnote disambiguation but I don't believe that should be the current practice. I'm going to recommend redirect with a hatnote as the current consensus on redirect precedence seems to be first-come-first-serve and we shouldn't overturn what seems to be a wide consensus in a random MfD for a Wikiproject disambiguation page. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I would note we do have 152 disambiguation pages to project namespace Wikipedia shortcuts, as seen at Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages, so I don't necessarily think it's too problematic in this case to have a disambiguation page. Doug Mehus T·C 22:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a project disambiguation page per the comments with Chess and in consideration to the fact that, on a "first-come, first-serve basis" (if that's how we roll with respect to project shortcuts, then this should, rightly, go back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic since editor Chalst created it). I noted that editor Mike Dillon retargeted it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics, boldly, that Tavix described, and then editor Joy, consistent with WP:BRD, challenged that retarget and converted it into a disambiguation page. Ideally, we should have had the discussion at the point this was turned into a project disambiguation page, but we didn't, and so here we are. Doug Mehus T·C 22:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic wasn't created until two years after my edit to Wikipedia:WPL, so to call changing the redirect from being broken to going to an actual page "retargeting" is pretty silly. It's also not clear who I would have discussed it with at the time. That being said, I'm only commenting here because I was tagged; I don't have an opinion on this 15 years later after my last involvement Mike Dillon 22:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discuss on its talk page. This is not an MfD matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a talk page discussion on related talk pages is probably the better venue in this case, but, just to clarify, anything within the project namespace is in-scope of MfD, correct? You're just saying that because this involves other pages, it shouldn't be brought to MfD without those pages having been engaged, more or less? Doug Mehus T·C 01:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in scope because there is no deletion rationale, no request for deletion. Also, the issues raised are worthy of a discussion, but there is no good reason for that discussion to be on a 7 day deadline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:Deletion by redirection and such deletion is common at deletion forums. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict evident in the history on 17 February 2020, between User:CFCF and User:Tavix should be taken to the talk page, and then the next WP:DR is WP:3O. MfD is not for resolving every random disagreement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The project disambiguation page should be deleted, so "miscellany for deletion" is absolutely the correct place to get such miscellany deleted. I'm surprised a MfD regular is unaware of this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 10:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A disputed redirection maybe is good for MfD. However, I am I not persuaded by the rationale. I think it is better as a shortcuts DAB page. I note almost no incoming links. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although do you mean that you are not persuaded by the rationale since you prefer the dab page? For what it's worth, disambiguation pages shouldn't have links (cf. WP:DPL). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks, not. I think WPL is not distinctive enough compared to the other possibilities. I think WP:LING is now the single recommended shortcut now very well used, and multiple shortcuts are worse than one shortcut. I think the shortcut DAB page is a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no useful links to this page and it was served up only 143 times in the year before this MfD was filed.[1] It is a dab page that resolves no ambiguity that anyone actually has. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]