Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:P T

 __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:  No consensus. Positions from participating editors include all the usual options from delete to redirect to userfy to keep, with no dominant recommendation. RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:P T


What and why? There's potential for confusion It is deliberately ambiguous with the dab WP:PT. Per the talk I've fixed up the hatnotes for PT -> primary topic connecting the policy and guideline. See also Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation Widefox ; talk 15:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reasoning MfD for single editor essay in WP space problem pages per Essays, not created per WP:PRJCRE i.e. not classified as either of Essay, Information page, Wikipedia how-to, and WP:PRJDEL applies (where moving user's essay to their userspace is suggested):
 * P T describes itself as This is a pseudo-DAB/pseudo-shortcut and problematically encourages linking to itself So, you can link to both the guideline and policy by simply linking to WP:P T, which will bring readers here
 * As a dab 1. there are no valid entries 2. can be redirected and merged to WP:PT anyhow even if there were per WP:MOSDAB
 * As a shortcut existentially problematic per guideline WP:SCJARGON (compounded by misguided deliberately ambiguous WP:WOTTA), either it:
 * Duplicates WP:PT with a superfluous space (which I believe is unusual/bad for an initialism, and not a useful redirect from misspelling) - confusing, or
 * For WP:primarytopic it is a discouraged abbreviated form, decreasing readability for the general reader - WP:P T enables and actively encourages linking to itself something that existing guideline discourages.
 * As content (guideline/) duplicates WP:primarytopic - it's seems like/has potential to grow into a WP:CFORK with the encouraging to link to it
 * As a user essay could/should be renamed as too close to WP:PT, moved to userspace per PRJDEL. Widefox ; talk 21:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where to start... it's not an essay, and there's not a single shred of evidence that it ever was one, just your assumption that if it isn't on your list of specific types and formats of page, it must be an essay. It's not likely to grow, that would defeat the whole purpose of having it. I'll note that on its talk page, I thought it was obvious but obviously not so. Perhaps you could explain what existentially problematic means? And much of the rest of this is no clearer to me I admit. But that's a start. Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to WP:PT. Almost everything at PT is two words, so "P T" has ambiguity just like "PT". It seems the author wishes to be able to have links to both places that discuss primary topics. The current dab lists Disambiguation via the Primary topic redirect, so all is needed is to add a sub-point under the point for Primary topic to link to Article titles. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be more explicit...I've already added a hatnote to Article titles at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I've just added the sub at the dab WP:PT but it's a bit overkill as a mention of the same topic. ✅ Widefox ; talk 00:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This would do relatively little damage, but seem pointless to me frankly. But then, it's my creation. Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:POLFORK says the opposite (see below). Widefox ; talk 10:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, see below. That's just your interpretation of another editor's personal opinion. Enough said? Andrewa (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK WP:SCJARGON are guidelines. I know it's your page, but ad infinitum (below) is the fallacy that creating more ambiguity leads to less ambiguity. I don't want to dab this and the dab WP:PT as I'm getting drawn into that infinity. Widefox ; talk 13:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where to start... this substring was discussing WP:POLFORK, but I guess you've given up on that. WP:CFORK is discussed elsewhere, but just to recap, it's about articles, and this isn't one. WP:SCJARGON is relevant, I think it broadly supports the use I've made of WP: P T, shall we start a string on why I think that? And it's not my page, see the template I created at template:belongs.
 * But most important, the whole point of WP:P T was and is that it is far, far less ambiguous than WP:PT. Otherwise, I'd just have kept on using WP:PT, as I used to once. Before I learned better. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Provisional Keep - That is, Keep until an explanation is given of why this should be deleted. It seems harmless enough.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a breakdown of options to the nom. Widefox ; talk 21:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So I see. See previous discussions for answers to these... for example, it is neither a DAB in the strict sense (that's why there are  no valid entries) nor an essay. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As it isn't defined what it is, the nom evaluates it as for each of those. Surely an essay would be the default if it isn't anything else? Widefox ; talk 23:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is something else, and it isn't an essay. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Creation didn't follow WP:PRJCRE. Widefox ; talk 13:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It did. You are just wasting time. Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're claiming it has a template on it? That's provable false. Widefox ; talk 09:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an unconvincing argument without reasoning per WP:JUSTAPOLICY, the absence of reasoning is noted. Widefox ; talk 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just clearing up a matter of fact. I'm not claiming it has a template on it. Or do you still think I am? Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect to either Article titles (the policy) or Disambiguation (the guideline). No great harm in redirecting to either, provided each links to the other (as they should anyway). But no reason to delete, in fact the arguments given by nom were all answered before this was raised (e.g. it's not an essay at all). Shortcuts of any sort should only be used by people who know where they lead, and shouldn't be changed unless for very good reason. But unfortunately, users of WP:PT have been a bit slack in both regards over the years, see its history. While I appreciate that not everyone finds this page useful, it does them no harm, and deleting it would just make things worse. Disclosure: I am of course the page's creator! Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an absence of an answer that I understood, so my concerned about it being undefined but ambiguous with WP:PT stands. Widefox ; talk 00:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it undefined? It's merely a useful shortcut, to be used in the PT namespace by those who know where it leads (only), and the links they create to be followed by those who wish to see the details of the arguments it allows to be more concisely written. Agree that it's ambiguous with WP:PT (and deliberately so in fact), but how is that harmful? Deleting it as you propose, on the other hand, makes all such arguments (both existing and future) harder to follow. Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per PRJCRE it isn't templated as one thing. In your own words, it's deliberately ambiguous with WP:PT, encourages linking to itself rather than policy or guideline. Widefox ; talk 13:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * None of which I see as problems. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As editors should attempt to follow, how can we fix it per PRJCRE? Widefox ; talk 12:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The header you quote selectively reads more fully It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. No fix required. Just commonsense. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "commonsense" that goes against the consensus of WP:PRJCRE WP:SCJARGON WP:WOTTA? That's just WP:IAR. If there was any spirit of following consensus but this didn't follow the letter of it, sure I'd accept "commonsense", but a page with these issues (3 specific ones, I think) against consensus needs a stronger defence. An absence of one is noted, no need to string this out. Widefox ; talk 10:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:SK#1 no reason for deletion offered. Challenges to relevance or content forking (weak) or merging belong on talk pages and would not result in deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Confusion, CFORK, and encouraging linking to itself rather than policy and guideline seem to be raison d'être, so SK #1 does not apply (but by this logic that CFORK is OK - anyone could create WP:S K #1 to CFORK that policy and guideline and encourage linking to that in discussions) as deletion of problem page to prevent confusion is an option. Widefox ; talk 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is NOT a blatant content fork. It is not copied from anything. This MfD is a WP:GAME disrupting a valid policy discussion, see here. This MfD should be speedy closed, no valid reason for deletion, and disruptive.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Copy? See WP:CFORK the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject - this duplicates the dab/guideline-shortcut. WP:POLFORK (essay) has It is never constructive to attempt to create a new page or section of WP:POLICY-style material...Even one which is simply redundant will not be accepted, but merged or deleted, as retaining separate pages covering the same issue would inevitably lead to diverging advice and avoidable conflict between editors (additionally) I'm not withdrawing, so SK1 has no validity. An intentionally ambiguous title (own words) is clearly in need of discussion per guideline/essay. (it doesn't help discussion to not follow AGF). As an essay, fine, it needn't be confusingly titled, that's just not helpful in discussions. Widefox ; talk 10:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * CFORK is about mainspace content. There is no case for deletion. Your withdrawal is not required for SK. A retitle is done by WP:RM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * CFORK is mainspace yes, WP:POLFORK (essay) is WP space. WP:SCJARGON is guideline, which this fails abbreviated form, decreasing readability for the general reader - WP:P T enabled and actively encourages (linking to itself) something that existing guideline discourages. Combined with being deliberately ambiguous with an existing already ambiguous shortcut WP:PT. Those existential problems may need deletion, yes. In no way does just stating SK help, as it clearly doesn't apply. I point you to the nom Essays which says MfD is the correct place for essay problems. Widefox ; talk 14:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * SCJARGON issues? You want WP:RM. WP:Essays?  Sure, if there is a deletion reason come to MfD.  Don’t come to mfd just because something says it can go to mfd.  You are attempting to use the threat of deletion to force a rapid decision. Sorry, no, the worst of the problems do not go to deletion, therefore the issues belong on a talk page, several of them fitting into the RM process.  An essay or proposal that looks like a weird shortcut?  You yourself have gone overboard with jargon in complaining about bad jargon. I dislike jargon too, but MfD is the wrong forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject (my emphasis)... This is not an article.
 * It is never constructive to attempt to create a new page or section of WP:POLICY-style material... as you say, that's just an essay. I'm not convinced that the page proposed for deletion is even what the author(s) mean by WP:POLICY-style material, but what does it matter?
 * I'm not withdrawing, so SK1 has no validity. WP:SK reads inpart 1. The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection... (my emphasis). The rest of the section clarifies what that might mean. It seems applicable to me, but the point here is just, the logic of I'm not withdrawing, so SK1 has no validity is faulty, because there are other reasons SK1 might be applicable.
 * I think the rest of that post just repeats points already answered. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawal was the only remaining justification I hadn't covered, it doesn't assist to invert that chronological record, which is clear for all to see. Widefox ; talk 11:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point about chronological order. But the logic is still faulty. You've left out your premise that you had provided an argument for deletion or redirection. It could I think be argued that you have not provided an argument for deletion or redirection, particularly in view of the complete lack of support so far. That's my only criticism of the logic. Andrewa (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussing the merits of a deliberately ambiguous title that duplicates an ambiguous shortcut, and fails WP space creation guideline is central, the chronology of my legitimate concern is straying far from it. (not agreeing with an argument is very different from an assertion that it hasn't been attempted, which I claim I have, including links per WP:CLUE specifically PRJCRE - no template, Essays and information pages in the "Wikipedia namespace" should not be used to create an alternative rule set - in this case an alternative to the perceived weakness of WP:PT) Widefox ; talk 12:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're seriously misunderstanding PRJCRE. This isn't an alternative rule set at all. It's just an aid to linking to the existing ruleset. Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't understand what this page is attempting. Strictly, nothing applies as the page doesn't conform to any type, as WP space are meant to. WP:CHIMERA doesn't quite fit for example. The hatnotes already navigate users, and in discussions PRIMARYTOPIC can be used. What's missing? WP:INCDAB, WP:FURTHERDAB don't fit. From looking at this briefly, there's only one topic anyhow, with a mention on a policy and def on a guideline. Widefox ; talk 13:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it's a very unusual situation... not many DABs or redirects can have as messy a history coupled with so wide a recent usage as WP:PT, surely! It may even be unique. But you have offered no better solution, no understanding of the problem, and most important, no coherent reason for deletion. Andrewa (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy. The page creator, who is very active on issues relating to page titles and pagemoves, has used this page to express his views on which pages should and should not be linked in discussions referencing the "primary topic" concept. He is quite entitled to do so, but it would be better to do so in his own voice rather than the project's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no objection to userfying provided a redirect is left to avoid breaking links. I don't see any point, as there's never been any content there that expresses my views with the Voice of Wikipedia. It's just a navigation aid that can be used by anyone who wants it clear what they mean, which WP:PT fails to do. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If forcibly userfied, which means the community has decided it is inappropriate in project space, then project space shortcuts should be deleted. Either it is OWNed or it is not. Half-userfication is the worth of both options.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. But I was hoping it might satisfy Newyorkbrad and Widefox. There's no content that violates wp:voice, and no case for it to be forcibly userfied. But I'm happy to voluntarily userfy it, and I and any others who wish can have an alternative to WP:PT that specifically and clearly refers to Primary Topic, and existing links won't be broken, and we can all get back to more productive editing. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What WP:P T achieves
I'm concerned that the survey above is becoming a discussion and my own posts there TLDR, so I'm going to summarise some of them here, and invite discussion of them here.

(Please follow the stringing convention if you take me up on this. I say this because at the discussions in which I've been using the shortcut, it has often been ignored.)

Nom finds the term undefined and confusing. But all they or anyone else need do to see exactly what it means is to follow the link. This doesn't work with WP:PT and now never will, as from time to time it has been redefined to mean several different and quite incompatible things. This is sad but we cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Nom finds the term ambiguous. Well, yes. As are many other shortcuts. And editors who use this or any other shortcut without following the link to find out what it means will sometimes link to the wrong page(s). To delete all ambiguous shortcuts is not a solution, and if it were, among the first to go would be WP:PT.

Nom is correct that this is messy. But this requested deletion would just make it more so. Again, we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I find it a very useful shortcut, obviously, particularly in the ongoing discussions regarding primary topic. Deleting the shortcut will make my arguments in this controversial area, both past and future, harder to follow, and also those of any others who choose to use the shortcut rather than the severely ambiguous WP:PT. And for no obvious benefit. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And despite nine other edits in the meantime, nom has made no attempt to reply here. Andrewa (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:PT is ambiguous, it's a dab. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't ambiguous.) WP:P T has potential for confusing readers - it's just a whitespace difference. We merge dabs with titles that differ minimally, or we hatnote ambiguous pages. This is neither currently. Creating a second deliberately ambiguous shortcut of an initialism that is already ambiguous helps discussion how? WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a strong argument. Widefox ; talk 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:PT is ambiguous, it's a dab. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't ambiguous.) Agree sort of. Perhaps we need a different name for pages of this sort. But that seems overkill unless there are other examples. Do you know of any?
 * WP:P T has potential for confusing readers - it's just a whitespace difference. How? Did it confuse you? When and how?
 * We merge dabs with titles that differ minimally, or we hatnote ambiguous pages. This is neither currently. This isn't a proposal to merge, it's a proposal to delete.
 * Creating a second deliberately ambiguous shortcut of an initialism that is already ambiguous helps discussion how? I think I've explained it as well as I could. Others seem to understand why I found it useful. Perhaps you should now just take our word for it.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a strong argument. True. And neither is this straw man. Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've used "PT" in many discussions without even knowing WP:PT exists, and other editors weren't familiar with PT being PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'd say it's small potatoes to be honest. As soon as I was aware of WP:P T wasn't WP:PT or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I realised I hadn't read it and then realised it either needs dabbing or fixing. Merging (or deleting) is a valid outcome of a deletion discussion. OTHERSTUFF is the justification than there's other ambiguous titles, not a straw man from my understanding. The logic that because WP:PT is ambiguous, it justifies WP:P T to clarify is ad infinitum, just use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC! Widefox ; talk 11:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And you are free to use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if you feel that is sufficient. You should avoid using any shortcut you do not understand, and you and many others have not understood WP:PT, partly because for much of its history it has led to a completely wrong and unintended destination, depending on when the link had been created and when it was followed. This is not the fault of those who created the links, but of those who changed the destination, apparently not caring that they were making previous links nonsensical. There would be a better case for deleting WP:PT than for deleting WP:P T, but neither case is valid... both deletions make the situation worse not better. Having a general DAB at WP:PT, covering all its various historical meanings, is the best we can do for it now.
 * But there is also a use for a more specific shortcut that leads to both policy and guideline, for use in discussions where both are relevant but the other meanings are not, and the best name I could come up with was WP:P T. Andrewa (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad infinitum. Widefox ; talk 12:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a better name, then let us create a new specific Primary Topic DAB/shortcut at that name, and I'll use it in future. And then indeed, it would be small potatoes to change WP:P T to simply redirect to WP:PT, as you seem to want. It would be better IMO to redirect WP:P T to the new specific Primary Topic DAB/shortcut, to avoid changing the sense of archived discussions, but it is really not worth arguing about IMO. People will sort it out. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can what you're trying to achieve have one of the templates on it? If so, which? That may (or may not) be a good starting point for me to understand what you're trying to achieve. In the meantime, your content if it's useful for you should be made into an essay or user subpage to preserve it, the shortcut is probably best redirected to the dab I'd say. Widefox ; talk 12:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any existing template that fitted, but suggestions welcome. Creating a new template for this one specific case seems overkill.
 * The header and trailer on the page read respectively This is a pseudo-DAB/pseudo-shortcut to the policy and guideline on primary topic and you can link to both the guideline and policy by simply linking to WP:P T, which will bring readers here. On the other hand, WP:PT is a more general DAB, with links to several unrelated project pages, and should not generally be used for linking from discussions of primary topic.
 * I thought when I wrote them that these made it very clear what the page was for, but evidently not as clear as was needed.
 * Please discuss at WT:P T, but I would strongly recommend you do not edit them yourself, as by your own admission you do not understand the purpose of the page. And anyone else is more than welcome to chip in there of course.
 * P S there's no content to preserve, but maybe the talk page WT:P T would be worth preserving. WP:P T is just a navigation aid. But even this may be premature, as I'm hopeful that WP:P T may survive this as the navigation aid it was intended to be. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Note to closer As I've been advised by Andrewa to not edit the page (both above, and I've been pinged at the talk), directly against policy WP:OWN, I have no further desire to discuss or edit this MfD or the page when warned off by an admin, and suggest such (problematic) behaviour with a WP space page is not a problem at all by treating this as a user essay which best aligns with our policies and the creator/sole editor's intent. As such, I do not feel I should have any say over it's content, and there is no dispute apart from the problematic deliberately ambiguous title, which can be solved by moving to userspace. Widefox ; talk 10:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My advice to was specifically that they should not edit the project page WP:P T, as they claimed not to understand its purpose. I invited them instead to discuss it at its talk page WT:P T. They misunderstood this advice apparently, so I tried to further clarify it here.
 * I am of course happy to discuss any of these matters in the appropriate forums. In the case of any fears that my behavior is below par, either as an admin or as a contributor, the first point of call should be my user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Questions I'm avoiding using both the link WP:P T and the abbreviation P T until this is resolved. I will continue to avoid the abbreviation WP:PT and the abbreviation PT, as it's sufficiently ambiguous to be counterproductive IMO.

And of course I advise others to do the same. But that's up to them of course. I'll use the existing shortcuts etc.. It won't be as convenient or as informative, but I cannot see any other way for the moment. The hatnotes that have now been created do make this less of a problem than it once was.

I would like to set up a short, unambiguous page, linking to both the policy and the guideline and with no other content, in the project namespace. This is most convenient for me obviously, and I think for others too. But question one: Is this acceptable? I can't see why not, but if WP:P T is deleted or even redirected by consensus here, that's really a rhetorical question. It's not acceptable. That's exactly what is proposed for deletion here!

So failing that, I'd like to write a short essay in the Project Namespace, again pointing to the two, with a short name. I propose WP:PTE ("Primary Topic Essay"). It will point to the policy and guideline, and have a brief history of WP:PT and WP:P T and explain why I think that neither should now be used. That's as convenient for me. But Question 2 is serious: Would anyone object to this? I feel I must ask.

And failing that I may write something similar in my user space. Like all pages it will belong to the whole project. Linking to it will be a lot less convenient of course, but at least I can't see any grounds for objection, and I'll use it.

Comments? I'd really like to get back to more productive editing. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And just in case this MfD does succeed (I still see no rational basis for it, but at least one other Wikipedian does above) I'm experimenting with alternatives, see User talk:Andrewa/P T. Comments there, and particularly any suggestions, more than welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2018 (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.