Talk:NPOV

Untitled

Is this kind of redirects between name spaces very good? I would suggest to have this deleted. If it doesn't exist, people will notice and start writing [[Wikipedia:NPOV|]] instead. / Habj 00:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It is bad - it should exist as it's own topic. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not Wikipedia is so famous and notable by now that this subject has become notable outside Wikipedia too. Andries 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Normally, Wikipedia rules would not allow a redirect to a different namespace. This seems to me like an excellent situation in which to ignore the rule, however, because the acronym (as opposed to the full written-out term) is highly unlikely to be used except to refer to the Wikipedia policy. --Russ (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to bring up a centralized discussion about the redirects NPOV and Npov at RFD, but apparently that is the wrong avenue. Currently, these two redirects have different targets which seems inappropriate. They should either both redirect to Objectivity (disambiguation) or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Personally I think Objectivity (disambiguation) is the right choice. (See also Talk:Npov) Khatru2 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed Npov; but now that you pointed it out, I agree that it should be made consistent with the all-caps redirect. --Russ (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

According to "what links here", this redirect is in current use on about 6000 pages. What fraction of those refer to any of the topics on the disambiguation page other than the Wikipedia policy page? If there is diversity of intended meaning, then I would agree that the disambiguation page makes some sense. If, on the other hand, the use is exclusively in the context of the Wikipedia page, the redirect should point there. My cursory review of the first 500 uses leads me to believe that the latter is the case. Confirmed numbers would be helpful in making the decision.
The lowercase version of this redirect is in use on 110 current pages. From what I can tell, they also all refer to the Wikipedia policy page, but I haven't reviewed them as closely yet. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistaken RFD. I think the benefit of redirecting to Objectivity (disambiguation) with a top link is that someone who is actually searching for an article about neutral point of view will end up in the right place. People who are looking for the policy will only have one extra click. This is how it is on the pages AFD, RFA, and POV, for example, where most of the incoming links do refer to the Wikipedia policies. On the other hand, if someone searching were to end up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, there is no link to an article about objectivity. When there is some doubt about whether or not a term is a plausible search, I think it should direct to the main namespace. In this case, I think it is plausible that someone would be curious enough to see what the encyclopedia itself has to say about NPOV since the term is used so much by the editors. Khatru2 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV" is used pretty much exclusively as Wikipedia jargon. I think a cross namespace redirect is a good IAR case here. — Matt Crypto 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, we probably should have a disambiguation link from the policy page to the Objectivity page. I'll go draft it. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)