| Revision as of 02:23, 13 June 2007 editBkonrad (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators218,727 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:04, 13 June 2007 edit undoEep² (talk | contribs)7,014 editsm →[]: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ::: One word that you will want to check on is ]. There is no hypocrisy in my critique of this page in this AfD, despite the quite frankly '''incivil''' remarks you leave in the edit history: '''01:19, 13 June 2007 Eep² (Talk | contribs) (4,876 bytes) (replies to the hypocracy)'''. I would appreciate not being accused of hypocrisy for simply voicing my opinion. While it is interesting to trace root words, as you mention, I'm not really convinced that its useful or encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I will back off from voting on this and stay neutral. <em>—<font color="Indigo">]</font> <sup><small><b><font color="MediumSlateBlue">]</font></b></small></sup></em> 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ::: One word that you will want to check on is ]. There is no hypocrisy in my critique of this page in this AfD, despite the quite frankly '''incivil''' remarks you leave in the edit history: '''01:19, 13 June 2007 Eep² (Talk | contribs) (4,876 bytes) (replies to the hypocracy)'''. I would appreciate not being accused of hypocrisy for simply voicing my opinion. While it is interesting to trace root words, as you mention, I'm not really convinced that its useful or encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I will back off from voting on this and stay neutral. <em>—<font color="Indigo">]</font> <sup><small><b><font color="MediumSlateBlue">]</font></b></small></sup></em> 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Looks like someone needs to look up the word ] (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopedia too). In case you'd rather not visit the links: "A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering ''all'' branches of knowledge or, less commonly, ''all'' aspects of one subject." and "A ''comprehensive'' reference work containing articles on a ''wide range'' of subjects or on ''numerous aspects'' of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." ]--know that word too? The incivility here is the inability for most people in these discussions about disambiguity to understand basic concepts (such as what ] means). What's interesting to you may not be interesting to me. Interest is a ] concept (as are consensus, notability, credibility, and every other term Wikipedians enjoy tossing around to support their biased "arguments"). ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' Oh dear, yet another list of items that happen to contain the same word masquerading as a disambiguation page. ] ≠ ] 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Oh dear, yet another list of items that happen to contain the same word masquerading as a disambiguation page. ] ≠ ] 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:04, 13 June 2007
Inner
Non-helpful dab page. As far as I can see all entries should be removed for the page to conform with WP:MOSDAB. Another such useless dab created by the same user, Outer, is also undergoing AfD. IPSOS (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Yea, and Outer's AfD is leaning towards keep, just as this one most likely will too... What is it with you deletionists?? ∞ΣɛÞ² 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Resorting to name-calling will not bolster your arguments. On the contrary, it will weaken them. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- As will your continued removal of whitespace in order to make it harder to reply to discussions. ∞ΣɛÞ² 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- As with Outer (AfD discussion) (where, contrary to the author's claim above, there are several cogent arguments to delete that are strongly based upon Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation) none of the places and things listed are actually known simply as "Inner". This is a puported disambiguation article with zero things that are actually ambiguous, and the very thing that Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Lists cautions against. Delete. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as could probably be useful given the number of items listed on the DAB page, and users may be searching for one of the items there but not know the exact term the page would be under.-h i s r e s e a r c h 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this not what disambig pages are for. The number of items is irrelevant becuase, as Uncle G notes, there's nothing ambiguous about the artcles' names. There's no reason for the page - it's just a list of articles beginning with the word inner - its not functioning as a disambig page. To quote the disambig guide line: "Disambiguation pages are not search indices."--Cailil 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Lists. Deor 15:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete—As per UncleG's and others' comments above, this page is not in keeping with the current consensus as to the function of a dab page. --Paul Erik 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Totally and utterly pointless. The In article linked under "See Also" is a much better example of a list of things that actually need to be disambiguated. Propaniac 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ohhhhh, OK, so what makes In worthy of a dab page but not Inner? Puhleaze--don't by an inconsistent, contradicting hypocrite... ∞ΣɛÞ² 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Calling another user an "inconsistent, contradicting hypocrite" seems a bit incivil, bordering on WP:NPA vio. —Gaff 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the argument that, contrary to the above claims, this is not a disambig page but rather amounts to a "List of articles with Inner in their name". None of these items are ambiguous and none of them referred to as "inner". Arkyan • 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Its a standard disambiguation age. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
DeleteNeutral Just like deleting Outer. We flat out do not need disambig pages linking together every loosely associated group of things that have one word in common. Nobody is going to search for Inner. This is illogical. —Gaff 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Says who? That's your opinion--not mine. I like to trace root words of things back to their source and learn how they're used elsewhere. This is what an encyclopedia is for. ∞ΣɛÞ² 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- One word that you will want to check on is Hypocrisy. There is no hypocrisy in my critique of this page in this AfD, despite the quite frankly incivil remarks you leave in the edit history: 01:19, 13 June 2007 Eep² (Talk | contribs) (4,876 bytes) (replies to the hypocracy). I would appreciate not being accused of hypocrisy for simply voicing my opinion. While it is interesting to trace root words, as you mention, I'm not really convinced that its useful or encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I will back off from voting on this and stay neutral. —Gaff 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like someone needs to look up the word encyclopedia (see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopedia too). In case you'd rather not visit the links: "A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." and "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Comprehensive--know that word too? The incivility here is the inability for most people in these discussions about disambiguity to understand basic concepts (such as what ambiguous means). What's interesting to you may not be interesting to me. Interest is a relative concept (as are consensus, notability, credibility, and every other term Wikipedians enjoy tossing around to support their biased "arguments"). ∞ΣɛÞ² 04:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Oh dear, yet another list of items that happen to contain the same word masquerading as a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)