Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:21, 13 June 2007

Outer

Non-helpfull dab page. As far as I can see all entries should be removed for the page to conform with WP:MOSDAB Taemyr 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "non-helpfull" (correct term: "unhelpful") to who? Not me. It fits the definition of a DAB which is "solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term". Well, "outer" is the ambiguous term and can refer to numerous things. Also, the "See also" section fits many of these entries. If you're going to argue WP:MOSDAB (as you and others are on Talk:Mystery (disambiguation)), you better be prepared to delete 99% of the disambiguation pages on Wikipedia because every one I've seen contains links to articles that contain the word/phrase... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with entries that contain the phrase, I problems with entries included solely because they contain the phrase. Also, I do not suggest deletion because outer has links that should be deleted. I suggest deletion because outer has no links that should not be deleted. And yes, WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section can be interpreted in a way that contradicts WP:D#Lists, I hope this get fixed soon. Taemyr 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems legitimate to me; the term "outer" can be used in many different contexts. This articles helps a user choose the correct article based on which context they are in. --Haemo 05:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A little broad, but otherwise seems on the up and up. Ford MF 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it appears useful but perhaps needs a reduction in the number of links.--Arthana 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the three editors above; See my reasons for nomination; if someone points out two entries that are reasonable targets for outer then I would withdraw my nomination. I don't think there are. Taemyr 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; dab page. John Vandenberg 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would anyone search for "outer" by itself? --Alvestrand 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a reason to delete. The issue is that we have no articles that fits as targets. Taemyr 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, Alvestrand, why would anyone search for any single term at all? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's quite a list of links on the page, so it's probably a legitimate use of a disambig. *Cremepuff 222* 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a useful disambiguation page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a disambiguation article because it isn't actually disambiguating anything. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as dab page. ~~Convert to list~~ - I agree with Alvestrand, people looking for a particular article of information are unlikely to enter "Outer." One might, but most likely when just wandering through Wikipedia and not looking for a particular article. Its not useful as a standard dab article, but as a list it might make sense to keep it. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The belief that no-one would ever use this page is not a reason to delete it. It's too subjective and would set a bad precedent. Taemyr 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a good argument not to have it as a dab page, which is my first choice. I don't exactly agree with your logic, however. Lack of usefulness seems a good reason to drop a page. I presume you proposed this for deletion to preserve it existence? I'm a bit confused there. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I want to get this article deleted. But not from for the reason that no users would type outer. Rather for the reason that there is no article on wikipedia that outer should lead to. And yes, I do see that these two arguments are connected. Taemyr 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People who are looking for an article that begins with "outer" can use Special:Allpages; it's bound to be more current than this mess. And even if this so-called dab page is found useful by someone, it is a poster child for WP:D, which governs "different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title". "Outer" is not the natural title for any of these entries. If this is allowed to stand, we might as well throw out the guidelines and say "Go ahead, put any entry on a dab page if it helps draw attention to an article you wrote, or if it brings readers to an article about someone or something you idolize, even if that's not what they were looking for." Chris the speller 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems unlikely that anyone would run into this page, but it would be useful to anyone who did get there, and it's clearly harmless to everyone who never does go there. Capmango 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it help me if I type in Outer to be pointed to Outer Hebrides? None of the articles listed is good targets for Outer. The article can cause harm because we will end up dealing with "other stuff exists" type of arguments. Taemyr 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is that harmful? It's called disambiguating--you know, making the ambiguous less ambiguous? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no actual ambiguity, between any of the things listed on the article, in the first place. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the terms are known only by the term "Outer". It is not a disambiguation page, merely a list of links that contain the word "outer". While it might perhaps be "harmless", it serves no useful function beyond what Special:Allpages can do better. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that special:allpages also lists redirects, which can make it very annoying when trying to find links to legitmate articles (aside from the fact that special:allpages isn't very accessible and a dab page is much more user-friendly). Also, many existing dab pages already include compound-word links (i.e. "outer space") so you'd have to remove a lot of links from dab pages, which I think is just lame. Oh and creating a List of outer-related articles is also lame (like I had to do with List of mystery-related television shows recently due to a silly dispute over 4 measly articles with "mysteries" in their titles)--ridiculous (and creating various lists of outer-related genre/platform-specific articles is stupid, too, when a single dab page would suffice). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, dab pages are more user-friendly. This is because we have standards for what should be included in them. Taemyr 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and those standards are for disambiguating, which is exactly what outer does. Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not what disambiguation pages are for. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is what dab pages are for! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No articles fit as targets, as Taemyr has explained. --Paul Erik 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation isn't just about articles that fit the target of a vague term, however. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. That's exactly what disambiguation is about. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the places and things listed are actually known simply as "Outer". This is a puported disambiguation article with zero things that are actually ambiguous, and the very thing that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists cautions against. Delete. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per my comments on the Inner AFD. This is a list of articles containing the word "outer" it is not a disambiguation page. A Disambig page is not a search index. It should list "articles associated with the same title" (i.e. Mercury). But this is not a disambig page because there is no confusion between article names like outer space and outer ear.--Cailil ^talk 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. Deor 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. What next after this and Inner. A disambig page for Upper? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think In between comes next?!—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Outer in their name". None of these items are ambiguous and none of them referred to as "outer". Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defies any logical attempt at justification. If I ever find myself at Outer Ankara while trying to read about outer nuclear layers, I'll take it back. Propaniac 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an illogical page. This reminds me a lot of List of things with "darker" in the title. Both contributed by the same user. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary as a disambig page, leaving it an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous the number of people who don't know how to (or simply can't) think relatively. Sad, really. Wikipedia's navigation system is crap and needs an overhaul--badly. The dab pages are a good place to start this overhaul since Special:AllPages is inept and inadequate, since it doesn't list by subject, has no categorization other than by namespace, lists redirects, and doesn't even give brief descriptions of each page anyway (usually obscured with wiki markup). Having a specific "related" dab page makes sense. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, on the other hand, maybe it really is illogical... Surely the majority can't be wrong? IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:02, 13 June 2007 edit Eep² (talk \| contribs) 7,014 edits m →‎[[Outer]]: elaboration on why special pages don't cut it ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:21, 13 June 2007 edit undo IPSOS (talk \| contribs) 8,702 edits →‎[[Outer]] Next edit →
Line 49:		Line 49:

	:Ridiculous the number of people who don't know how to (or simply can't) think relatively. Sad, really. Wikipedia's navigation system is crap and needs an overhaul--badly. The dab pages are a good place to start this overhaul since [[Special:AllPages]] is inept and inadequate, since it doesn't list by subject, has no categorization other than by namespace, lists redirects, and doesn't even give brief descriptions of each page anyway (usually obscured with wiki markup). Having a specific "related" dab page makes sense. ∞[[User:Eep²\|'''Σɛ<sub>Þ</sub>²''']] <sup>([[User_talk:Eep²\|τ]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Eep²\|c]])</sup> 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)		:Ridiculous the number of people who don't know how to (or simply can't) think relatively. Sad, really. Wikipedia's navigation system is crap and needs an overhaul--badly. The dab pages are a good place to start this overhaul since [[Special:AllPages]] is inept and inadequate, since it doesn't list by subject, has no categorization other than by namespace, lists redirects, and doesn't even give brief descriptions of each page anyway (usually obscured with wiki markup). Having a specific "related" dab page makes sense. ∞[[User:Eep²\|'''Σɛ<sub>Þ</sub>²''']] <sup>([[User_talk:Eep²\|τ]]\|[[Special:Contributions/Eep²\|c]])</sup> 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
			::Or, on the other hand, maybe it really <!--you're just stoned--> is illogical... Surely the majority can't be wrong? [[User:IPSOS\|IPSOS]] ([[User talk:IPSOS\|talk]]) 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)