keep. There are lots of wp's out there. Why is this one being singled out? Daniel.Cardenas 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete: (change to neutral, see below) according to WP:SHORT, the "Wp:" pseudo-namespace (as opposed to the "WP:" pseudo-namespace) is deprecated and should be avoided. No reason not to start the cleanup with this one. Xtifrtälk 11:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that a lot of people use these. They are quoted on the "edit summary" line. People don't want to reach for the caps key and remember what gets capitalized. This will make it more inconvenient to reference wiki policy during changes. I've requested that wp: name space get undeprecated. Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Reason_for_ALL_CAPS.3FDaniel.Cardenas 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that they'd only been deprecated since April. Sounds like there may still be some issues to work out with shortcuts, so I'm switching to neutral on this one until people figure out what they really want (I'm happy either way). Xtifrtälk 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If you open up Special:Prefixindex/Wp: you will see about 300 shortcuts that all use lower-case wp. This wp:mosdab is only one of them. Is this RfD intended to remove them all? Deprecating wp: for the future is one thing, but deleting all the useful ones that still exist is quite another. Can you imagine any other use for the namespace that will be freed up? The deprecation comes from a change to Wikipedia:Shortcut made on 4 April 2007 by RockMFR. Maybe we can persuade him to join this discussion. EdJohnston 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I did a lot of re-organization on that page after some discussions here involving various rarely-used namespaces. I put the lowercase prefixes in the second table because, as is sort of obvious, these aren't used very often as compared to the ALL CAPS versions. This doesn't mean they should be deleted, but I do think that these should be avoided for the sake of simplicity. Most of the "deprecated" pseudo-namespaces are of no help to anyone, as they are too rarely-used to be memorable. The best shortcuts are those which are intuitive enough to be guessed without prior knowledge (i.e. WP:DELETE, WP:CSS, WP:HELP, etc). There isn't really a strong case for deletion of Wp: redirects, but there isn't a great reason for keeping them, either. Who is going to type in wp:AfD or Mos:Dab and expect to not end up at a redlink? Don't make them, don't use them, and we won't have a problem. Here's a good example I just found: WikiProject Sheffield current uses WP:Sheff and WPT:Sheff as their redirects, rather than the expected WP:SHEFF and WT:SHEFF (both are redlinks as I type this). This is the kind of thing that we want to avoid. --- RockMFR 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
How can we know that the lowercase are not used very often compared to the uppercase? I mostly see the lowercase versions used by people in edit summaries. All lowercase is easier for people to remember because you don't have to remember to capitalize anything. wp:afd does not result in a red link. I'm not suggesting that mixed case is good. Again I suggest the lowercase shortcuts are widely used and a defacto standard. Daniel.Cardenas 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize with RockMFR's point about WP:SHEFF not working while WP:Sheff does. At the risk of re-offering a perennial proposal, could the MediaWiki software force strings to upper case that are probably shortcuts? For instance strings of letters with a colon in the 2nd through 4th position? It appears that some kind of case-fiddling already happens for strings entered in the search box, though I could never quite figure out what the rule was. EdJohnston 04:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We could create upper-case equivalents for all the shortcut redirects that were created in mixed case. This would fix the problem that WP:Sheff exists while WP:SHEFF does not. This could be done manually or by bot, at the cost of a few hundred new redirects. If this were done, would it take away the reason for deleting wp:mosdab? EdJohnston 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Not that I have a dog in this fight, but redirects are cheap. Aarktica 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not delete, therefore keep by virtue of status quo. I am 100% against the Wp: namespace, but we need consensus it is bad. That's not a decision to be made on individual RfD discussions. I'd love to see an end to the use of illegitimate pseudo-namespaces, but it should happen with the community behind it. BigNate37(T) 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was Disambig. Converted to disambig using WJBscribe's draft. -- JLaTondre 00:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Da Vinci code isn't hot any more, this redirect is very unlikely to be used looking for that character. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep I put a footnote at the top. I mean, on disambig pages, there are often some stuff there that aren't as famous as they used to be, that aren't the real names do we need to remove those as well? TheBlazikenMaster 13:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Despite that, clicking one more link doesn't exactly cause much inconvenience, and this way it avoids unintentional spoiling for those who might just be seeking a point of clarification or something on the character. Will2710|Talk! 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: this is an awfully generic term for such a specific target. I'm sure there's lots of people, both fictional and real, who have been called "The Teacher". Conversion to a dab page might be a good option if more turn up. But for now, this is probably ok (though a little undue-weighty). Xtifrtälk 09:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment See KRS-One ("The Teacha.") --Aarktica 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unused redirect and unlikely search term for target article. --Farix (Talk) 13:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The Teacher is too generic. It could refer to more then the Da Vinci Code. ~Wikihermit 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Why don't we just move the page to The Teacher (Da Vinci Code character) or something. If we delete the page then anyone who just wants to find out about him, will get told who he is, giving away a major plot line of the book. --Mollsmolyneux 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a redirect page; moving it to an even less likely search target won't help anything. We don't organize our encyclopedia around the idea of making it more difficult to find things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguate. I can think of three possible articles someone might be inexpertly searching for under "The Teacher". I propose we go for a dismabiguation page - I have drafted a suggestion at User:WJBscribe/Drafts/1. WjBscribe 19:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was delete. Sr13 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Internet slang doesn't mention anything about I like pie. According to a user of urbandictionary.com, I like pie is a "phrase used to politely decline to engage in discussion, with the implication that the original speaker is deliberately trying to upset you and/or posting flamebait". Google returns 184,000 hits for it. --oKtosiTe_talk 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not mentioned, not merged, entirely unhelpful. --- RockMFR 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Delete per nom. -- Loukinho 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is ALWAYS spoken by persons that really likes pie, it has no inliteral meaning. TheBlazikenMaster 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just like "I like cheese" is spoken by a person that likes cheese. TheBlazikenMaster 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. There is no clear connection bet. the redirect and the target page. ShalomHello 13:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
