Wikipedia talk:P T

This page was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2018. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Why this page

I was surprised to find that WP:PT didn't point straight to either the guideline or policy on primary topic.

It's a normal abbreviation of primary topic, but there's quite an editing history I see, and it doesn't seem worth discussing. Hopefully, this link will take off instead.

If it needs to be a redir it should be to the policy, which links to the guideline, while the guideline doesn't currently link to the policy as far as I can see (which also surprised me). Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, what is this page? Widefox; talk 15:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just about primary topic (PT) having both policy and guideline, I've added a hatnote to the guideline [1] and tidied the policy hatnote. [2]. I don't see the need for this page, why doesn't it deserve deletion? Widefox; talk 15:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you had already nominated it for deletion, best to discuss there. Yes, the hatnotes are a good idea too, and thank you for attending to them. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:P T, which closed as no consensus.

In view of this, I'll see whether I can modify the page to address some or all of the concerns raised.

In particular 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. [3]

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to wp:PT

There are currently 483 incoming links to wp:PT [4] including two from the pages I just created.

I suspect that they're mainly intended for one or the other of the P T pages or sections, but again, probably not worth the trouble to sort it out.

It's also likely that there are links from edit summaries, in fact I think I have myself created a few of these over the years, but there's no easy way to find them AFAIK. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations glossaries etc

Wikipedia:Shortcut directory currently lists WP:PT in its TLA table, but doesn't list it anywhere else.

More to follow. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head and foot matter and possible template

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. [5]

I replied there, but basically, I think this may be (hopefully) a rare if not unique requirement, WP:PT being such a mess and so widely used. So any existing template is unlikely to quite fit, and a new one seems overkill.

But perhaps the existing head and foot matter can be improved. I have cautioned Widefox against doing this themselves, as by their own admission they do not understand the purpose of the page. But discussion here seems a very good idea. Andrewa (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pinged here to be told I shouldn't edit this? That's not how WP works. It sounds like it should be an user essay if other editors shouldn't edit it per WP:OWN. Widefox; talk 12:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've been pinged to be advised not to edit the project page WP:P T, and also told something similar here and encouraged there and here to edit this talk page instead... as you have, thank you! Please continue. Do you find this advice unhelpful? Do you understand why I'm giving it?

And more to the point, how would you improve the project page? Do you still think it's an essay? It doesn't seem to fit that description to me. Maybe WikiProject Essays could help us there.

And BTW, other editors are free to edit even my user essays, but requested to discuss first. See template:belongs which I wrote and now place on many of them. Some editors are a bit precious about their user space, it seems to me, and I try not to be. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I understand, I'm not sure that you're aware that you've strayed across the possessiveness line per WP:OWN, a policy that has some advice for you. Is this how to treat other editors who try to understand (per long discussion at WP:D project) and keep the place per consensus? (rhetorical) Instead of multiple locations for discussion, there is no need to assert ownership over a user essay, which this is now abundantly clear is the reality, so my reply is at the agreed talk location (rather than this or the others per WP:TPYES) WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:P T. I won't be editing this further. Widefox; talk 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been very patient with you, as have others. You've repeatedly stopped just short of what I'd consider clear disruption, including here. Disruption can be unintentional, and includes making unwarranted charges of misconduct, and wp:IDHT. Other editors may not be so patient; One already did describe your behaviour as disruptive but took it no further. But all the best. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]