Wikipedia talk:WORLD

Target of redirect

This redirect has pointed to the same essay at Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#The universe does not revolve around you for well over four year. But, about two months ago, it was changed with no explaination and no discussion that I can locate to instead point to Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

I've restored the original redirect. To change the target of such a long-standing shortcut really needs to be discussed for consensus before being done, as it breaks years of prior usage by changing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Dreadstar ☥ 03:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia worldview is a more important topic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For that we have the much more apt WP:BIAS. Dreadstar ☥ 16:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For someone trying to remember shortcut for world view, world is much better. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternate to WP:BIAS is WP:WORLDVIEW - they both point to where you're mentioning. Changing an existing redirect to go somewhere else causes confusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address people trying to find a more important topic and world being a logical choice. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It addresses the fact that the existing redirect has been in place for over 5 year, and is known and used for that purpose already, and that changing the use of an existing redirect causes confusion. There are already two existing and quite logical shortcuts available at WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDVIEW that have been in use themselves for several years. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: What is the best target for this redirect?

There is a dispute on the target for this redirect. The original target of Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#The universe does not revolve around you has existed for over five years and the shortcut is known for that purpose. However, in November, a user redirected it to instead point to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I recently reverted it back, but the user who changed it has since disputed the target. I'm therefore creating this RfC for wider community discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This should be listed at WP:RFD, not here. Mhiji 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I originally had it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 8#WP:WORLD but moved it here based on feedback. RfC will work (although there's not a good RfC category to use for it - so maybe not?). Regardless, I'm tired of moving the discussion, so if others want to move it they can - I'm leaving it here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, make it a disambiguation page. I don't think this would be the first dab page for a WP: shortcut. harej 02:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a hat at the present target, which provides links to WP:WORLDVIEW. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree a disambiguation page is good. Or a link directly to worldview with a hat to "the universe...". Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

5 years in, leave it alone. To change it now would break years worth of links in talk page archives. The hatnote should be sufficient and the other shortcuts to the other essay are more logical. Imzadi 1979 → 09:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as is. It is a shortcut link, and unless it's absolutely necessary, it should provide a direct shortcut, not yet another page to read and select from - that's not a shortcut. Since it's been in use for five years, has hundreds of links and users who utilize it in its current context, and has no real connection to Wikipedia:Systemic bias other than a shortened WP:WORLDVIEW shortcut (why not make it WP:WV - is WP Project WV more important than a world view? How do we judge 'importance'?), I think it should remain the same with the hat to disambiguate to Wikipedia:Systemic bias since some users seem to make a connection between the two. Dreadstar ☥ 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The link world was to wikipedia policy on worldview which appears more relevant than "universe doesn't revolve around you." Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What policy is that? Dreadstar ☥ 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the subtle clarification. My bad, not a policy, but an adhered to norm. Although it can be argued it is strongly associated with wp:npov. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The same argument can be made that the existing target is closely related to WP:AGF and WP:OWN, if not WP:NPOV as well. It's not some random humorous essay, but clear advise that helps to illustrate existing policies and guidelines by easilly linking to the fact that no single editor is the center of the WP:WORLD. --- Barek (talk) - 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Make disambiguation page. wp:world pointing to worldview makes more sense then pointing to text about the "universe does not revolve around you". Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep where it has been pointing for over five years. It is known for its current use, no need to add confusion. The existing hatnote clearly provides direction if anyone happens to reach it by mistake. The proposed new target already has WP:WORLDVIEW, which is both logical and much more precise. --- Barek (talk) - 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)