Talk:MVP (disambiguation)

Should redirect to MVP (disambiguation) rather than Most valuable player

This page redirects to the sports related usage only Most valuable player. However, there may be other uses in vastly different contexts, such as software engineering Model–view–presenter.

From Wikipedia:Redirect:

Abbreviations and initialisms (for example, DSM-IV redirects to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). But often an abbreviation will have multiple meanings, none of which is a primary topic—in that case a disambiguation page should be created rather than a redirect.

There already exists a disambiguation page, MVP (disambiguation). Therefore this page should redirect to the MVP (disambiguation) page with Category:Redirects_to_disambiguation_pages rather than Category:Redirects_from_initialisms. Warp9pnt9 12:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC) [fixed my broken sig, my bad].

@Warp9pnt9: the relevant guidance here is WP:Primary redirect. There are many hundreds links to MVP that clearly intend the meaning of most valuable player. However, if you think that is not actually the primary topic, please start a discussion and establish consensus to move MVP (disambiguation) to MVP. Simply changing the target to the redirect results in a WP:Malplaced disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic? "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I would argue that knowing that MVP means Most Valuable Player is not particularly educational, whereas a topic such as Model View Presentation, is highly educational. While the sports term may be more notable and enduring, I do not think it is educational. The term and the page does nothing to educate a person to become an MVP of any team activity. On the other hand, knowledge of MVP in software engineering may help one to create code that is better in terms of speed of creation, ease of testing, and long term maintainability. While sporting events have existed for millennia, the practice commercialized teams which routinely name MVPs is only a few decades old, perhaps as much as a century. Whereas programming is somewhat newer, the concept of MVP and it's historical predecessors are about two or three decades old, yet will perhaps prove to be much more enduring and valuable in a technological and educational context, for many decades more, whereas MVP in a sports context is, was, and always will be relatively unchanged. Weighing the educational value of these two, there is a gross discrepancy, such that the one of lesser educational value should not squelch the one of higher practical value.

"Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include:" "Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere". I contend that referencing the WhatLinksHere is heavily biased in this case, to favor one definition of less educational value over any other definition.

"While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative." "Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary." 'Not "what first comes to (your) mind"' "we are trying to build an encyclopedia that is untainted by systemic bias." I would contend that using WhatLinksHere or page traffic as justification for an article that has been listed as primary topic to remain as primary topic is itself a form of systemic bias, as is the entire practice of primary topics in the first place.

As a user, when looking up pan unfamiliar term, I generally find it more helpful and educational to get an overview of the various contextual usages given by a disambiguation page, rather than get sent to a page that maybe one particular group of people cares about, because it's "the first thing that comes to mind" for them. Tradition fueled by the bias of mindless repetition? An encyclopedia editable by everyone but with a litany of rules in place to prevent most edits which might otherwise reduce bias in favor of education? These are what Wikipedia has been to me for a long time, which is why I barely bother editing anything but the occasional blatant grammatical error. Warp9pnt9 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MVP (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)