Talk:World domination (disambiguation)

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

List of crossovers in fiction
Uses term, with link! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

World domination, in politics

 * Hegemony, predominant influence exercised by one nation over others.
 * Hyperpower, a state that is militarily, economically and technologically dominant on the world stage.
 * Superpower, a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests.
 * That "original research. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reword politics
I reworded the politics descriptions to more closely match the articles they refer to. Also archived old discussions--Work permit (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Summit (game),
I deleted Summit entry. The title of the game is not world domination. It is just a game whose theme is world domination. --Work permit (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A note regarding disambiguation "standards"
Yes, it's good that you wish to make disambiguations consistent throughout the site... but removing the content of this page defeats its purpose, and it might as well be nominated for deletion if it MUST be strict to the definition. WP:IAR applies here. The page as it is serves the purpose of a non-existant unsourceable World domination article. It's closer to a disambiguation than not, so it was classed as one (As it serves to point users to the correct article). Besides this, there is a good consensus to leave the page as is. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add that MOS-DAB is a guideline, not a policy. Certainly MOS-DAB should generally be followed on a disambig page. But this particular page has a unique history as can be seen by the active discussions in the archives page.--Work permit (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A guideline is for a solid reason. And that there is no wikipedia article "world domination" is also for a reason. These reasons were voiced by wikipedia community. I don't see any reason to bend these reasons for your wants. - Altenmann >t 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no article because it's hard to find a piece of literature which describes the term. It exists, but until then, this is a disambiguation page as well as providing links to terms that discuss the topic at hand. The guideline is for a solid reason, but exceptions exist. Instead of insisting on following it to a tee, take note of the needs of readers searching 'world domination'. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd all agree that consensus policy "dominates" any guideline (sorry for the poor pun). Shall we open a new wp:rfc? Perhaps a bit more structured then the last one? I think we all agree with Altenmann's observation that the sections he deleted don't belong on a DAB per MOS-DAB. If the only reason to keep these sections in the DAB, in violation of guidelines is possible confusion caused by the articles that link to this page, then I am willing to change those links to the appropriate article and leave this page as a "strict" dab page. I actually started doing that a while back when consensus on this DAB was first being formed. If the extended DAB is the best compromise between a strict DAB and edit wars, I'm fine with having an extended DAB.--Work permit (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reasoned consensus on a talk page can certainly lead to the occasional exception to a guideline. The banner at the top of WP:MOSDAB says: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. older ≠ wiser 03:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to meet both goals: applying the guidelines to help readers who are looking for one of the ambiguously-titled articles, and also listing the other articles that are related to the concept of "world domination". If this is acceptable to everyone, I might also suggest moving the page to "World Domination" (capital-d) to reflect to most common ambiguous title. If it's not acceptable, I'd recommend splitting the page into a disambiguation page (listing the ambguously-titled articles) and a list article List of multi-nation authorities or somesuch. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The solution implemented by JHunterJ is in the right direction. - Altenmann >t 19:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Altenmann. While a strict reading of MOS-DAB would lead one to conclude that these entries don't belong in the See also section, I think it works better to put the items there rather then the main section.  It will cause less confusion to typical DAB users.  In addition, I suppose the terms listed could be confused with World domination, in which case we would be in compliance with guidelines.  Weak argument, made stronger by  Altenmann's deletion of Imperialism and Empire.  --Work permit (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Occasional exceptions" are in the standard header for MOS pages. Exceptions are related to style, not to content. DAB pages have very specific content and purpose. They are technical pages similar to redirects, categories, lists, etc. While it is allowable (but quite hard, I must say) to tweak their layout, tweaking with their main purpose is bad thing:it defeats the purpose of introducing special kinds of pages. - Altenmann >t 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Conquer the World used to redirect to this page, then was changed to a link to the micropose. Risk (game) or La Conquête du Monde (French for "conquer the world"),  and Conquer the World, (a compilation of strategy games by Microprose) used to be in the "main" section of this page.  I just changed the the "conquer the world" page to a DAB, put the two board games in the main section of that article and a see also link to this one--Work permit (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I found when I was changing links in articles from World domination to one of the others on the list, hegemony tended to be the one I linked to the most. So I could argue that Hegemony belongs on the list more then superpower.  But I'm fine either way.  I'm also fine with removing superpower from the current list--Work permit (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

Draft:World domination is underway.
A draft is underway at Draft:World domination to replace the current disambiguation page with an article on the broad concept. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)