--BDD (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Wikipedia:CPP }} → :Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CPP&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-06-16&end=2019-07-15&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Wikipedia%3ACPP stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CPP|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CPP closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CPP|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CPP closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CPP|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CPP closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
I would like to propose reassigning the redirect {{no redirect|WP:CPP}} from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. This shortcut is hardly used for the project, but would be a natural shortcut for the highly linked essay about civility. Some points to consider:
- Shortcut {{no redirect|WP:CPP}}
- longevity{{snd}}The shortcut {{no redirect|WP:CPP}} has pointed to the WikiProject since it was created in 2008.
- continuity{{snd}}Since it was created, the shortcut has never been changed.
- previous discussion{{snd}}What at first glance appears to be a previous discussion about this shortcut (this Rfd) actually is not, as that concerns a main-space shortcut that was deleted.
- Naturalness of target
- in public{{snd}}There is evidence that CPP is used in public, [https://www.acronymfinder.com/CPP.html according to acronymfinder], to indicate the college Cal Poly Pomona, and is listed as #5 for CPP there.
- at Wikipedia{{snd}}Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing is a popular essay, with hundreds of inlinks to the title and to various shortcuts.
- in-links{{snd}}The essay has many in-links to the full title ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing&hideredirs=1&hidetrans=1&limit=500 first 500], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing&hideredirs=1&hidetrans=1&limit=1000 first 1000]).
- redirects{{snd}}There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing&hidelinks=1 13 redirects] in WP space; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:PUSH&limit=200 PUSH] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:CPUSH&limit=350 CPUSH] appear to have the most in-links (of the ones I checked)
- the Project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona
- moribund{{snd}}Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona appears to be moribund: last edit: Aug 2015; last Talk: Jan 2015.
- in-links{{snd}}The project has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cal_Poly_Pomona&limit=125&hideredirs=1&hidetrans=1 around 130 inlinks] but the CPP redirect has only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:CPP&hidetrans=1&hideredirs=1 thirteen in-links] (excluding Rfd-related)
I had good luck on one prior occasion (I forget which) in requesting a group relinquish a shortcut that was not used much, in favor of another target where it made good logical sense. I simply approached the group on their talk page and asked; as I recall there was a brief discussion, and that was that. I had planned to do the same in this case, but I doubt that raising a discussion on a page that hasn't been touched in four years would make much sense, so I'm bringing the discussion here instead. I'll notify the project, but don't imagine that will draw a lot of people here.
Question: should WP:CPP be retargeted to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing? Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Fake header|level=5|Discussion}}
In general, I'm opposed to "stealing" redirects and retargeting them to somewhere else, even when they haven't been used as long as this one has. On the other hand, this one really doesn't seem to have been used any time recently, so it's not clear to me that anyone would be inconvenienced. In fact the most recent case I'm aware of, is this edit, which is the one that got me here in the first place. As it turns out, that use of the shortcut WP:CPP was in error, the author having intended the essay as the actual destination of that shortcut.
As the essay is quite popular and, I believe there would be a significant overall benefit to the project by retargeting the shortcut; and as there has been very little or no valid recent use of the shortcut, I see very little downside to retargeting it. Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Notified: {{noping|Dabackgammonator}}, {{noping|Hijiri88}}, WP:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona. Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Retarget per Mathglot. A project for a branch campus of a state university generally won't get much interest, and pretty much anything should take precedence over it. Plus, since this redirect has guaranteed accidental use for the proposed target increases the "retarget" argument — stealing shortcuts risks changing the meaning of a message, but if people are accidentally using this for civil POV pushing already, retargeting converts their links from something irrelevant to a good link. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:*So I've gone through WhatLinksHere and found mixed results. Two appearances ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=747708891 example]) accidentally used WP:CPP as an abbreviation for Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. One is related to the university. One is related to civil POV pushing. One appears on a massive list of three-letter abbreviations (many of which are redlinked), and another appears on a massive directory that matches abbreviations to their targets, so we can ignore both of them. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:*PS, DGG, would you chime in? You're the only one, as far as I can tell, who's accidentally used WP:CPP to refer to close paraphrasing. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:*: Comment: I had also gone through more checking, and found that same usage. If the two seem to have equal claim to CPP, perhaps neither one should have it, and it should be salted, or retargeted to some new page like, WP:List of shortcuts likely to lead to misunderstandings, essentially a sort of "soft disambig page". Mathglot (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
:::*No, I don't think that's wise. The appearances of CPP = POV pushing are separated by several years: Hijri used it recently, while its other appearance at User:Raul654/archive16 dates from 2008. These are completely independent uses, while the university usage comes from a blocked sockpuppeteer (not likely to use it again) and DGG's the only one using CPP = close paraphrase. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Mathglot's opening comment basically sums it up (although I was a bit more succinct in describing my own feelings on the matter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian_politics&diff=prev&oldid=904759247 here]). The one thing I would add is that the Aconymfinder results are not really relevant for our purposes, since the real-world acronym doesn't have "WP:" attached to it: we have a disambig page at CPP to list off-wiki topics that are known by this acronym. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- : Ha-ha, no one ever accused me of being succinct. Guess I need to work on that... {{wink}} Good job linking the CPP disambig page; didn't even think to look there, and I should've. Btw (and this is slightly o/t here) but I think I've seen helpful hat-notes in namespace before, where an article might be named similarly to a policy or other project page someone might be looking for instead, and I wonder if it would be appropriate to add a few CPP-policy links to that page, such as the two mentioned above. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Ah, here's an example: see hat-note at Civility. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I used this for close paraphrase because it is what I use in my set of macros for expanding abbreviations when typing and it must accidentally for one of several reasons not have gotten expanded. I do however think its logical, but not worth confusing with other existing redirects, even though those redirects should beoe deleted as not useful. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- : I don’t believe I understood what you just said. If it’s important, could you restate it in other words? Mathglot (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::See Macro (computer science). DGG has set up his computer so that when he types
WP:CPP, his computer automatically replaces those characters with Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (it expands the link from six characters to twenty-seven) before the edit is saved. However, for some reason his computer failed to replace the shorthand with the full text, so he ended up providing a link to Cal Poly by accident. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::: Helpful, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2019 (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.
