Talk:People: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
←Replaced content with ' ok this is not what you think it is. this is a scam. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh' |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BT list coverage|people}} |
|||
ok this is not what you think it is. this is a scam. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh |
|||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|||
|- |
|||
|[[Image:Evolution-tasks.png|48px|Votes for deletion]] |
|||
| style="text-align: center" |This article was nominated for '''''[[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]''''' on [[April 6]], [[2007]]. The result of the discussion was '''keep'''. An archived record of this discussion can be found [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People|here]]. |
|||
|} |
|||
== Celebs? == |
|||
Why is there a special page for celeberities of just one culture? It seems completely out of place. [[User:Atlastawake|David Youngberg]] 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I had noticed this as well and thought this was unusual. I believe it was added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People&diff=49760617&oldid=49724210 this edit]. I will remove it.--[[User:GregRM|GregRM]] 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Cosmology?== |
|||
I removed this from the article: |
|||
''[[Cosmology]] is a subset philosophy which explores where people come from and where they are going.'' |
|||
I don't think it's true. Cosmology is not as [[teleological]] a subject as described in that sentence and is philosophically more concerned with the problem of existence rather than it the issue of what the purpose of people is. --[[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Ethnic groups? == |
|||
This article is now dominated by a long list of ethnic classifications. This seems inappropriate to me for such a broad subject. Perhaps the list can be moved over to [[ethnic group]]? -- [[User:75.24.111.183|75.24.111.183]] 04:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I did the move. It makes much more sense to me now. |
|||
== Classification == |
|||
Does it make any sense having a classification the begins with: |
|||
"Peoples (in ethnic sense) are usually classified by how they look. Main groups of peoples include:" |
|||
and then, instead of classifying people by how they look, classify them by the language they speak!? --[[User:80.39.153.102|80.39.153.102]] 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Layout == |
|||
From my perspective there are a number of places in this article where text runs under pictures etc. While i'm not exactly wikisavvy enough to fix it I figured I might as well bring it to people's attentions. [[User:69.248.195.94|69.248.195.94]] 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
hi <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.82.19.190|206.82.19.190]] ([[User talk:206.82.19.190|talk]]) 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Why dont They Delete This== |
|||
I know but i is a way to talk to [[poeple]] |
|||
---- |
|||
This is just one of those pages that makes teachers tell kids not to use wikipedia !!!!!!!!!! |
|||
Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|||
<small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.10.101.109|72.10.101.109]] ([[User talk:72.10.101.109|talk]]) 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
''i know EXACTLY what you mean.'' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.88.5.10|64.88.5.10]] ([[User talk:64.88.5.10|talk]]) 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I so agree with you guys. All my teachers tell me not to use Wikipedia. I dont listen to them though. Who does? [[User:Ilovebirtbikes|Ilovebirtbikes]] 23:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Ilovedirtbikes[[User:Ilovebirtbikes|Ilovebirtbikes]] 23:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Why is this even neccesary? == |
|||
Why does there have to be an article on people? Hopefully everyone knows who people are (unless they are not people...?) This article is, in my opinion, unneccesary. Please correct me if i am wrong, but to me, this is just unneccesary.--[[User:Vegen8tor|Vegen8tor]] 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree with your sentiment. |
|||
I agree that this article is not necessary. The word "People" belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, but does anyone agree that this page is a candidate for deletion and if so, do they know how to start the deletion process? [[User:Petmal|Petmal]] 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Deletion??? This page obviously exists so that... |
|||
*[[animal cognition|intelligent animals]] |
|||
*[[extraterrestrial life|aliens]] |
|||
*[[God]] |
|||
*sundry other [[angels]] and [[demons]] |
|||
*[[supernatural beings]] not to mention |
|||
*[[feral child|feral children]] |
|||
...can come to a greater understanding of or be further entertained by '''[[people]]'''. [[User:ClaudeReigns|ClaudeReigns]] 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I've attached a <nowiki> {{prod}} </nowiki>tag to the article, as this seems to be the consensus.--[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Panser Born]] has removed the <nowiki> {{prod}} </nowiki> tag and calls for the article to be expanded. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've now nominated the article for deletion discussion. --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry for being difficult. =) I just think that what is surely such an integral topic to any encyclopedia shouldn't be deleted. [[User:Vegen8tor|Vegen8tor]] mentioned that "everyone knows who people are". While this is indeed true, almost everyone knows what [[food]] is, yet we have an article on that too. I'm sure there's some way to expand on this - perhaps something about different ethnicities? Maybe the distribution of people across the world? Let me know what you think. Cheers, [[User:Panser Born|<span style="text-decoration: underline; font-weight: bold; color: darkgreen; border: 1px solid;">-Panser Born-</span>]] <small>[[User_talk:Panser Born|<span style="color: #3399FF; text-decoration: underline;">(talk)</span>]]</small> 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::For me it's a question of "too obvious to include", but perhaps this only applies to the dismal state of the page at present. Both of the topics you mention are valuable, but already have articles: [[Ethnic group|Ethnicity]] and [[Migration]]. You are not being difficult: this is what the discussion page is for! --[[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Thanks to a lot of hard work on this article I have withdrawn my support for deletion on the AfD page, with great pleasure. [[User:Old Moonraker|Old Moonraker]] 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You ARE right This is unassisariy [[User:Ilovebirtbikes|Ilovebirtbikes]] 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Ilovedirtbikes[[User:Ilovebirtbikes|Ilovebirtbikes]] 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This article seems redundant since it's already covered in much more detail in the article on [[humans]]. If there's anything in the other article that's missing, but here, why not merge it in, and then have this article redirect to humans? [[Special:Contributions/72.197.74.80|72.197.74.80]] ([[User talk:72.197.74.80|talk]]) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Why does this article exist? == |
|||
One of the reasons why this article exists is that the main page shows eight top-level topics (represented by portals) including "Biography". At the time, the portal was named "People". Even the current [[:Category:Biography]] has to distinguish that it is about published literary works that are biographies, not about Wikipedia articles that are biographies. This "People" article existed for reasons of symmetry so that there would be a samed-named article/category/portal for each of the eight main subjects. It has broken down a little since then, but you get the idea. BTW: Those eight subjects are not the only top-level view into the categories: You can start in [[:Category:Categories]] and see that [[:Category:Main topic classifications]] and [[:Category:Fundamental]] also attempt to provide top-down starting points. In fact, we use to have a category called "Top_8" for the MainPage starting points. The subject of "People" immediately splays out into a dozen different areas of society, civilization, government, medicine, the human mind, intelligence, emotion and whatnot. You can see the same problem in [[:Category:People]]. Anyway, if this article were redirected to the "Biography" article, or just imitated what the People category does, it would probably be no great loss.--[[User:76.203.126.18|76.203.126.18]] 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
THIS VIOLATES WIKI STANDARDS! |
|||
why is this locked??? |
|||
i am reporting this by the way. who ever locked this article is going to be banned from doing this ever again on wiki. thank you, have a nice day. --[[User:70.42.211.4|70.42.211.4]] 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
Just a question, but why is there a "do not" in the sentence "Religion, philosophy, and science do not show or represent modes and aspects of inquiry which attempt to investigate and understand the nature, behavior, and purpose of people." I assume that this is a typo that was overlooked before the page was was semi-locked, and hence I can't correct it. [[Special:Contributions/70.79.19.99|70.79.19.99]] ([[User talk:70.79.19.99|talk]]) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Just a note on the discussions above about this article's relevance: one thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is the importance of "the people" as a political category, which the article touches on. It's not equivalent to "masses", "the working class", "the proletariat", etc., and has a significant history of use in a wide-range of political and cultural movements. On those grounds alone, there's good reason for it. [[User:DionysosProteus|DionysosProteus]] ([[User talk:DionysosProteus|talk]]) 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:03, 22 September 2008
ok this is not what you think it is. this is a scam. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh