Talk:World Universities Debating Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War with logic This article is part of WikiProject Debating, an attempt to standardize coverage of regional and world debate related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Alexander Deane

Would whoever has a grudge against Alex Deane please stop delinking him? If you don't feel he is worthy of a page in Wikipedia then Articles for deletion is for you (indeed looking at it our delinker has already had that idea). Delinking currently active articles impedes how Wikipedia works. If Alex called you a nasty name once (not impossible) then that's still no reason. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Dowlingm 03:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Update - page has now been deleted. One more reason to hate anonymous editing I suppose) Dowlingm 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tab (debating)

I've added Tab (debating)...well I've added a section in an article and made it redirect to it. Anyone with more technical info, please augment it, ideally with citations, if any published sources exist. jnestorius(talk) 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table please

Whoever wrote the information on this page, well done. Except it would benefit immensely from a table at the end. I'd like to see who won which year without having to trawl through reports about the weather, the confusion of the organisers, and the aptness or otherwise of their sobriquets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.64.204 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Worlds 1996

As somebody who attended worlds in 1996 I was quite disappointed to see the biased hatchet job somebody attempted on the competition. Most of the allegations made are either untrue or at least highly unsubstantiated and should not be referenced here unless proper proof/evidence/references can be made.

[edit] World rankings

These were dumped as OR, and have no place on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You placed note on the main article body. Can I know why ? Note has to be on the note section. Moreover, you wrote the term OR in the main article. Again may I know why ? Do you think talk page and main article are same? And finally I have to say, you are doing too much. Your talk page shows that you have been blocked for few days. Even one administrator declined your request to unblock. So, please stop doing such activity otherwise you will be blocked again for sure. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 06:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re-organisation of Article

I reckon the sections on the champsionship and debating council should be put ahead of the historical lists. It seems silly to list something that hasn't been explained yet.AleXd (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the introduction section explains the event well enough for readers to understand what follows. Beyond that, I think most readers first interest will be the major results and history of the event before the nitty-gritty mechanics of how it's organised. Purple Watermelon 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Controversy'?

Does anyone think the controversy section should have a section of it's own. It seems quite important, and is a bit odd just plonked there where it is. Whilst crack use, etc. might be important issues, should they be where they are?

Wanker 163.1.209.30 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)