Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lists of stadiums: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:07, 6 May 2006 editInstantnood (talk | contribs)32,683 edits Splitting list?← Previous edit Revision as of 08:52, 13 June 2006 edit undo86.13.155.120 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
There are way too many stadiums in the USA listed here, where there are much larger stadium from other countries that are ignored -- ] 08:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
==Links in headings??== ==Links in headings??==
Same query as for indoor arenas: links are contrary to Manual of Style ] 00:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC) Same query as for indoor arenas: links are contrary to Manual of Style ] 00:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:52, 13 June 2006

There are way too many stadiums in the USA listed here, where there are much larger stadium from other countries that are ignored -- 86.13.155.120 08:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Links in headings??

Same query as for indoor arenas: links are contrary to Manual of Style Robin Patterson 00:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And, the same response ... I think there's a fairly sound basis for an exception as far as lists that are divided by geographic boundaries (and particularly those that, like this one, seem to go on forever). --DMG413 00:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Splitting list?

New intro predicts a split of this page:

List of stadiums in Africa List of stadiums in Asia etc.

Why so? Do we have to maintain two lists? Please do not. I will add links #internal to this page, hope that will do.

-DePiep 15:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edits by user:Alanmak

Re " Justisfy why a subnational entity could be separated out from the country that it belongs to and make a new entry. This wastes space, create confusion and is silly. " - I've yet to see any valid argument that applies only to Hong Kong and Macao, but not Åland Islands, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, for instance. User:Alanmak has been arguing Hong Kong and Macao are part of the People's Republic of China. This is a fact that no body can deny, as stated in each of the basic laws " inalienable part of the People's Republic of China ". The key issue is that whether these territories should be separately listed, as they do in real-life practices and conventions. — Instantnood 06:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)