Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOS:VARS


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moot‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Now a redirect to WP:VARS. No prejudice against RfD. (non-admin closure) Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 07:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:VARS

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Having these cross-namespace redirects is a bad enough relic, but creating a disambiguation page for 5 such redirects which all point to the same page anyway, with a name (MOS:VARS) which is as far as I know not in use anywhere, only helps to clutter the search bar. Fram (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Incomprehensible and unnecessary. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't think we need a redirect for this term. I wouldn't even mix the five of them up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Moot. Never mind; this has been mooted by changing it to a redirect to WP:VARS, which is probably how I should have done this in the first place. As for the original nomination above, back when this was a DAB page: the entries all point to the same page; "clutter the search bar" seems to be a meaningless or at least inapplicable phrase; pretty much no page is in much if any use the moment it is created (and this AfD was opened almost instantly); and while DAB pages in pseudo-namespaces like "MOS:" that are not true namespace aliases like "WP:" are rare, there is no policy or guideline that prohibits them (especially for a pseudo-namespace created with affirmative consensus for it, as "MOS:" was, to stop hogging all the sensible/memorable "WP:" shortcut strings for MoS targets). So, this wasn't a stellar deletion nomination, but an WP:IDONTLIKEIT knee-jerk reaction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit clueless of people to have created an entire fake namespace in the encyclopaedia namespace when everything from WP:MOS/ENGVAR to WP:MOS/VAR has been there for the taking all along. Sub-pages work in the project namespace.  Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * [shrug] Wasn't my idea, and this isn't a referendum on a community decision dating to 2006. Given the lack of many if any notable real-world things with names that start with "MOS:", it's ultimately harmless. I would be more concerned about pseudo-namespace redirs that pretty much no one uses, yet which have an enormous possible number, e.g. "CAT:", "T:", "H:" (well, that one's pretty limited), and "P:" (see WP:NS). I can just imagine someone getting the idea in their head that every category should have a "CAT:Foobar" redirect for it, and so on. The "MOS:" ones are used all the time, but the others are just claptrap. Same with misspelled versions of the "MOS:" one, like "MoS:" and "Mos:"; we generally delete these at WP:RFD because they are disused clutter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.