Difference between revisions of "Talk:Introduction/Elections"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I'm leaving out a lot of stuff, though, such as a real discussion of how voting works. I would rather take information out of this page and leave it as a "Basics" page than to add information and make it into the regular "Election" page. That's not to say that we can't use this as a good start on a more throgouh page, though. --[[User:Dolohov|Dolohov]] 26 July 2005 21:34 (CEST) | :I'm leaving out a lot of stuff, though, such as a real discussion of how voting works. I would rather take information out of this page and leave it as a "Basics" page than to add information and make it into the regular "Election" page. That's not to say that we can't use this as a good start on a more throgouh page, though. --[[User:Dolohov|Dolohov]] 26 July 2005 21:34 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I suppose it's a matter of taste, but IMHO, your article is pretty long for an introduction, and if it was expanded a little bit more, it could easily be the full article. It's a wonderful page, I just think it is way too long for anyone who isn't patient. And the patient ones might as well get all of the important details. -- [[User:Nicholas|Nicholas]] July 26, 2005 21:54 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 21:54, 26 July 2005
I don't think you're writing basics pages anymore, I think you're writing manual pages. There's no reason the Basics (elections) page couldn't be the "Election" page, and the basics (scouts) page couldn't be the "Scout" page. -- Nicholas July 26, 2005 21:22 (CEST)
- I'm leaving out a lot of stuff, though, such as a real discussion of how voting works. I would rather take information out of this page and leave it as a "Basics" page than to add information and make it into the regular "Election" page. That's not to say that we can't use this as a good start on a more throgouh page, though. --Dolohov 26 July 2005 21:34 (CEST)
- I suppose it's a matter of taste, but IMHO, your article is pretty long for an introduction, and if it was expanded a little bit more, it could easily be the full article. It's a wonderful page, I just think it is way too long for anyone who isn't patient. And the patient ones might as well get all of the important details. -- Nicholas July 26, 2005 21:54 (CEST)
