Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC

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

The result of the discussion was: Move to user space. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC


This is a personal essay stub contradicting the second criteria of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, yet has been cited without making clear it is only an essay stub in discussion at Talk:Body Music (album) 22:38, 9 August 2017. This is not an appropriate way to challenge an accepted WP guideline. It should be deleted, or at least moved to private user space without any misleading redirect being preserved. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposer. Noting that after first cite in RM noted above at 22:38, at 22:40, 9 August 2017 a second misleading use of the guideline was made at Talk:Victoria Longley (Australian actress). Strangely as the real guideline was perfectly adequate in this case. Personal essays are not intended to be misrepresentable as policies and guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 08:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. as author. It's a shortcut definition for saying "this topic is either the primary topic for a given name (per the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) or it is the only topic for that name". It says nothing about any criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC other than referring to it; it certainly does not contradict it or anything stated at any policy or guideline. Frankly, I don't understand the objection.  I presume IIO misunderstood it.  --В²C ☎ 19:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to user space. The existing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline is sufficient. This personal essay stub is the work of a single editor and describes his own personal view, but it inappropriately masquerades as a policy or guideline document. Omnedon (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't deny having views, but if you think this essay is a stub or describes my view, I have no idea what you're talking about. It should be noted that both IIO and Omnedon have a history of disagreeing with me and seem to see disagreement where there is not even an opinion, let alone one to disagree with. --В²C ☎ 21:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons we have disagreed is you doing similar before - and it was deleted before. It's very obvious in the two uses of the shortcut you have already made that this is not the appropriate space. However no objection to aternative of userfying, providing that the official-looking redirect is deleted amd becomes a redlink. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You still have not substantiated your claim that the content of WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC contradicts WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or any other guideline or policy. --В²C ☎ 15:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (a) not a discussion I intend to get into: move to User space (b) anyone else without comparing them will also recognise that if your essay stub says the same as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then why not cite and link the real guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in discussions rather than WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC. (c) the two links above show the first two uses you have already made are likely to mislead. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The main PRIMARYTOPIC guideline is useful because it offers guidance on how to handle situations where there's ambiguity between multiple topics with the same name, and how to determine if one has primacy; however, when there's no such ambiguity (the "ORONLY" situation) you just return to the general article titling guidelines. If there's a legitimate non-creep reason why we need a separate superset instruction to cover both situations, I'm not seeing it. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  01:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. If Born2cycle finds this useful, then if keeping this content at its current title is not an option, move the page into Born2cycle's user space. Steel1943  (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not as useful in user space because it's more cumbersome to link. I still don't understand the issue with it. --В²C ☎ 15:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, if a page is in the project space, even if ther page is an essay, there is mild support from the community for its acceptance. If an essay is in the user space, there may not necessarily be community acceptance for the essay's stance or point, but it is somewhat more immune to controversy since it is in the user space of a specific editor, marrying the point of view with that editor. However, I have seen cases where a redirect in the "Wikipedia:" namespace targets a user space essay, and I don't see any direct opposition to keeping or deleting the redirect leftover in the event that the page is moved to the user space (since retaining the redirect would allow the existing incoming links to function as originally intended.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not seen that stance taken about any essays other than mine, and is contrary to what is said at WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval". Anyway, again this essay takes no stand on any issue, controversial or otherwise. It simply defines a term. Why is this even controversial? --В²C ☎ 21:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I never once said I believe your essay is controversial; you will have to ask someone else that question. I said "do not delete", and I have no opinion on whether that should be accomplished by keeping the content at its current title or moving it elsewhere. Steel1943  (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to user space, as others above have suggested. There's nothing wrong with B2C directing readers to a fuller explanation of his views; however, given that it's a piece crafted exclusively by B2C (and which some find confusing and/or contentious), it'd be more appropriate in user space rather than main space.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  15:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to user space and delete redirect. At first I was leaning toward keep on the basis that it is only an essay, but after some thought and reading WP:ESSAY I think that "essays may be moved into userspace as user essays [...] if they are found to be problematic," and this is problematic for several reasons: 1) The way it is written is confusing; I had to read it a few times to get the gist of what the term is supposed to mean or why this would matter. 2) It seems primarily redundant to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; apparently the author had trouble coming up with a second example where the concept would apply to a something (or someone) that was not the PRIMARYTOPIC of the term in question. 3) While avoiding making the argument in the essay itself that this should be equated for purposes of disambiguation with PRIMARYTOPIC, it is being used in this way and linked from WP space to imply there is any precedent for this argument. Because of that I think it is problematic, should be moved to userspace, and the resulting redirect deleted to prevent it from being linked via WP space. If it were more developed, easier to understand, made some explanation or argument, had clear examples, etc., it might be reasonable to let it stand but in this state it is bad for the project. Maybe in that sense my !vote is conditional on it not being completely reworked to address those concerns before the review time for this nomination is up. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I added an introduction. Is that helpful? --В²C ☎ 21:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Better. Still seems somewhat confusing to me because it lacks a clear example where the ONLYTOPIC is not the PRIMARYTOPIC unless you a saying that being the primary topic is predicated on there being any other topics for the name anywhere at all, which would be tough to demonstrate (affirmative or negative) so I don't think that is a necessary restriction to the concept of "primary". Also why is the guidance/observation about the POOT's title being used listed as a bullet under examples? That would belong in the introduction. I think maybe what you are trying to say is: If there are no competing uses on Wikipedia for the title of an article, and no overriding naming conventions, it does not need any disambiguation or qualifiers beyond the common name. It took me quite a while to figure that out if that's what (correct me if I'm wrong) you're aiming for. If that's the case it could be added by consensus as a note on WP:DAB and/or WP:AT if that is not already clear (which I think it is). Also you are not following the convention for titling the essay which would be "Primary or only topic" with shortcut links attributed (and redirects created) with something like  but fixing that can wait until this nomination is resolved. All told I'm still not clear what circumstances this essay is trying to address that are not already covered. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the exact circumstances, but I tried to use PRIMARYTOPIC in an "only topic" situation, and was shot down for doing so because the topic in question was not ambiguous, thus not subject to WP:Disambiguation, which is where WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is. So I came up with this. --В²C ☎ 05:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy per all of the above, as a functional compromise and solution. North America1000 08:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy and urge the sole author to give the page a proper title. It is ludicrous to use such a non-short shortcut style as a title.  It is not a "term".  It is not normal communication.  It is a celebration of the absurdity of Wikipedia jargon to invent a long allcaps compound word as a "term", let alone to use it as a title.  I notice that Wiktionary share's Wikipedia's uncomprehension of the meaning of "title".  See instead https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/title  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.