Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Inner

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

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 (τ 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 (τ 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As with (where, contrary to the author's claim above, there are several cogent arguments to delete that are strongly based upon 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 Disambiguation 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 s p a c e 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   talk 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Disambiguation. 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 (τ 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. First of all, as Uncle G said, In (or IN) is a list of articles for things that are ACTUALLY REFERRED TO as "IN" and could be the reasonable target of someone simply searching for "IN." This is obviously different than the likelihood of someone searching for "Inner" when they want "Inner ear," or whatever. This had already been explained repeatedly by other users; the fact that I didn't feel the need to spell out the reasoning yet again doesn't mean that I think there is no difference but I just like "In" more, or whatever. But your use of inconsistent, contradicting and hypocrite in succession, as if they all don't mean the same thing, indicates you're more a fan of redundancy than I am. Propaniac 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling another user an "inconsistent, contradicting hypocrite" seems a bit incivil, bordering on WP:NPA vio. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that you have resorted to calling editors names in this one discussion alone. Please stop this, now. In redirects to IN, which lists various things commonly known by the two-letter acronym "IN". Uncle G 12:10, 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".  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a standard disambiguation age. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. If you think that it is, please point to two things listed here that are commonly known as simply "Inner".  There is no ambiguity to resolve, because there aren't any things where articles at or redirects from this title would be appropriate.  See Disambiguation. Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I have serious issues with ΣɛÞ² because of his/her general complete lack of tact and civility. However, pages such as this increase the access and browsability of Wikipidia.  There are major problems with searchability and navigation on Wikipedia.  Pages like this open up whole new dimensions for the way that average users (not able to use Special pages for searching) interact with Wikipedia.  I think that this is a way to vastly expand the search capacity of Wikipdia. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * DeleteJust 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.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 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 (τ 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's what a dictionary is for. The dictionary, where every article can have usage notes and etymology, is over there.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know what etymology means? It means history, essentially. Do you know what encylopedias do? They are historical references. Splitting up dictionaries from encylopedias is stupid and deconstructionist--it's time to reconstruct and bring everything together, not keep it separate. Haven't you been keeping up with the progress of consciousness for the past, oh, hundred years or so at least? Things are moving together, not apart (despite what the theoretical physicists believe is happening with the universe). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Please read and learn our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Uncle G 00:03, 14 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.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 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 (τ 04:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * average users (not able to use Special pages for searching) &mdash; Your argument is a fallacy based upon a falsehood. "Average users" can type "Inner" into the search box and press the "Search" button, yielding the special page [ Special:Search/Inner], just as any other users can.  Disambiguation articles are not, and should not be, hand-written substitutes for what the MediaWiki software can do automatically. Uncle G 12:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the special pages don't give a brief description like a hand-written dab page would. The fallacy is yours (again). MediaWiki sucks at navigation (which is why it has to all be coded in the first place by end-users)! MediaWiki sucks as a message board/forum, too, which is why discussion/talk pages are crap and need to be hand-formatted (and why whitespace between replies is easier to read and reply to--HINT HINT)... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Search results don't have to be hand-written.  The software can quite happily produce various kinds of lists, many of which are even linked to in this very discussion. Uncle G 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki can not produce a descriptive list of results without includind wiki markup. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 04:24, 14 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)


 * Delete, unless any of these entries are actually referred to as simply "inner", in which case just delete the ones that aren't referred to as "inner". This is not disambiguating a term, just a word, and we are also supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns. Dekimasu よ! 07:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. People who are looking for an article that begins with "inner" can use Special:Allpages; it's bound to be more current than this steaming pile. The editor who piled up this mess, instead of continually rolling his eyes, should have directed tham towards WP:D, which governs "different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title". "Inner" is not the natural title for any of these entries, so they should all be deleted, so the whole page can be deleted. Chris the speller 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the special pages don't give a brief description like a hand-written dab page would. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Special:Allpages is not very user friendly, particularly for casual browsers not aware of Wikipedia's behind the scenes search capacities. Pages like this only increase the cohesiveness of the project.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, stike that: Check out this.  Thhis is way superior to what this page Inner can accomplish.  I'm back to delete.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 19:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One can do Special:Prefixindex/Inner, too. (This is linked to from the search page, notice.) Uncle G 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the special pages don't give descriptions and include redirects...why is this such a hard concept for you people to understand? ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate between articles that have the same name. None of the articles listed are called simply "Inner", so this is an unnecessary page. If you think the navigation system here needs changing, simply making pages like this without discussion is not the way to go about it. WarpstarRider 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Then delete all entries on dab pages that have links to any articles that do not only use the page's name. Have fun with that! ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.