Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:MOS:

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (WP:WITHDRAW). (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MOS:

Move to MOS:EL, MOS:PSEUDO, MOS:THE, and MOS:THEY respectively without leaving a redirect (i.e. delete the titles Wikipedia:MOS:EL, Wikipedia:MOS:PSEUDO, Wikipedia:MOS:THE, and Wikipedia:MOS:THEY). "MOS:" is a pseudo-namespace that does not need to be preceded by "Wikipedia:". All of these originated at plain "MOS:" but were moved to "Wikipedia:MOS:" by Rich Farmbrough. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unnecessary pseudonamespaces are an abomination. Nonetheless there are redirects, so best to leave them where they are. Remember that WP is a synonym: for Wikipedia: and WP:MOS does not seem an onerous amount to type. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

These aren't redirects. These are inappropriately moved disabiguation pages. I think you may be confusing these with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3#Wikipedia:MOS:. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure if anyone else does but I use WP:MOS: all the time probably because I use "WP:" all of the time - Easy mistake to make (and if you're like me than keep making!). I see no real reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davey2010: Any opinion on where the content should reside? E.g. whether MOS:EL should redirect to Wikipedia:MOS:EL or vise versa. I prefer Wikipedia:MOS:EL redirecting to MOS:EL (i.e. reversing the current situation) if both titles are kept, because, as you point out, "WP:MOS:" is a mistake. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't redirects. These are inappropriately moved disabiguation pages. I think you may be confusing these with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 3#Wikipedia:MOS:. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I apparently was confused when I made that !vote and now I've only twigged on what this whole MFD is about! - Yeah MOS: shouldn't redirect to WP:MOS - It should be the other way round, I have no objections to SMcCandlish moving these as really these should've been moved in the first place. –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And done already! :-) (I left the "Wikipedia:MOS:" post-move redirects behind after all, because there's an ongoing RfD about them as a class, and just added those to the RfD nomination.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move them back to MOS:EL, MOS:PSEUDO, MOS:THE, MOS:THEY where they belong. Deletion is out of the question; these are functional disambiguation pages. To keep (at the current names) is not viable, since "Wikipedia:MOS:FOO" doesn't correspond to any actual Wikipedia page nomenclature, and has nothing to do with the names of the pages being disambiguated. What's been done here is exactly the same thing as moving the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid DAB page to Help:Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid because you think the Help: namespace is where a DAB page should really be. Note to nominator: Please review page histories and try to figure out what's going on before deletion-nominating things. In looking at the history, I see that these weird names are the result of undiscussed page moves by an editor who seemed to be opposed to pseudo-namespaces and had been moving pages around to what he calls the "correct namespace", despite actual consensus discussions having produced the pseudo namespaces. I see that these moves date to around December 2017. I'm pretty sure he and I had a chat somewhere around that time about this (and about whether various WP:RCAT templates were or weren't redundant on some of this set of shortcuts), and it no longer seems to be an active issue; it's just that some detritus was left behind.
Better yet, rescind this strange deletion nomination, and use WP:RM/TR to simply move (probably without leaving a redirect behind) these pages back to the MOS:FOO names they were moved away from without discussion. That would take about 1 minute, instead of waiting for an mistake-MfD to run its course. Or close this and let me know, and I'll do the moves (they just shouldn't be done while this extraneous MfD process remains open about the same pages).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: I debated about the appropriate place to nominate these. Technically, I want these titles, but not their content, deleted, so I chose this venue. Sort of a grey area, I believe, but perhaps I am wrong. Anyone may close this and move the discussion elsewhere if they think that is appropriate. Warmest regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: Well, I can't now, since I'm advocatively involved in the thread. More to the point, you can. Anyone can rescind their own proposal, and I'm asking that you do so, so I can just go fix it. There's no substantive commentary here other than mine; both of the previous commenters are mistaking this for a discussion about redirects and whether a title like "Wikipedia:MOS:EL" can/should exist as a convenience path to the content. That's not what this MfD is about, it's about deleting these content pages, which obviously isn't going to and shouldn't happen. This whole process thread is the wrong venue for the wrong question, and should just get clipped so the right one can be invoked. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.