115
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: +
→Obama
I think it might be worth considering if we need two articles on Sequestration, or if we should use a merge and redirect scheme. I don't have a made up mind either way, but I thought it might be worth talking about. Your thoughts? Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 15:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
I think it might be worth considering if we need two articles on Sequestration, or if we should use a merge and redirect scheme. I don't have a made up mind either way, but I thought it might be worth talking about. Your thoughts? Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 15:25, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:I'm beginning to loose count how many there are (see post at Talk/MP). Yes, it is a problem. The main sequestration article is in category legal terms, so fixing sequester & sequestration should begin there, w/redirs to a disambig, don't you think? [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 15:30, 2 March 2013 (EST)
:I'm beginning to loose count how many there are (see post at Talk/MP). Yes, it is a problem. The main sequestration article is in category legal terms, so fixing sequester & sequestration should begin there, w/redirs to a disambig, don't you think? [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 15:30, 2 March 2013 (EST)
::I think the legal term usage is relatively unimportant and should be folded in to the article itself--my thought would be that the usage of the term is going to be limited to this event. I will participate in the other discussions. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 18:23, 2 March 2013 (EST)