SkipCaptcha
3,995
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 393:
Line 393: + +
national debt of US
::::In my opinion the Supreme Court decision is noteworthy enough to be included in that section, but so be it. Please note that my other objection was that no explanation for the reversion was offered. That is all. [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] ([[User talk:RyanFT|talk]]) 08:54, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
::::In my opinion the Supreme Court decision is noteworthy enough to be included in that section, but so be it. Please note that my other objection was that no explanation for the reversion was offered. That is all. [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] ([[User talk:RyanFT|talk]]) 08:54, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
==National debt of the United States==
Somebody has been cutting and pasting the same long list of "See alsos" into a bunch of different articles. I think there is a downside to a long list of weakly connected articles into a "see also" list. First, if an article is already a link in the text of the article, there is no need to also put the link in the "see also" list. Second, there is no relationship between the National Debt of the US and the United Nations or Obama donor list. How can we work out what a good "see also" list should be? Is the test, "a reader would feel cheated if he read the 'see also' article and does not see a clear relationship to the National Debt of the US"? Many thanks [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:32, 6 March 2016 (EST)