SkipCaptcha
3,995
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 232:
Line 232: + +
Talk:Donald Trump achievements (view source)
Revision as of 10:45, June 23, 2017
, 10:45, June 23, 2017→Opposition to D.T.: response
:Right now it is mainly duplicated, but you are missing the fact that I am going to be working on this for several years (assuming I don't die before that). This is a work in progress, and trimming the info here does not help. The information you see in that section will only be for the year 2017 (I am keeping all the info here for now to make the article more interesting for readers). At the end of the year I will move it to the 2017 sub-article. In the 2018, 2019, and 2020 sub-articles (and those for the next four years, assuming Trump is re-elected), I will also add "opposition" sections because many of Trump's achievements ''are'' challenged by liberals, including the courts they control. All of the information I add in these sub-articles will also be added to the [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] article, and this article here will have a summary of all the info in the various sub-articles and the Opposition to Donald Trump article.
:Right now it is mainly duplicated, but you are missing the fact that I am going to be working on this for several years (assuming I don't die before that). This is a work in progress, and trimming the info here does not help. The information you see in that section will only be for the year 2017 (I am keeping all the info here for now to make the article more interesting for readers). At the end of the year I will move it to the 2017 sub-article. In the 2018, 2019, and 2020 sub-articles (and those for the next four years, assuming Trump is re-elected), I will also add "opposition" sections because many of Trump's achievements ''are'' challenged by liberals, including the courts they control. All of the information I add in these sub-articles will also be added to the [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] article, and this article here will have a summary of all the info in the various sub-articles and the Opposition to Donald Trump article.
:I strongly oppose trimming the information here now for these reasons. It is unnecessary and misses the long-term plan for this series. The information you see now is only for 2017, which will be in the 2017 sub-article, while the Opposition to Donald Trump will have information throughout Trump's entire political career. Your argument of it being "unfair" to the reader is nonsense. We have many articles with dublicate information already. Your argument of it being unnecessary work for editors is also nonsense because I am the only editor making regular and major edits here (and I am happy with it this way). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:44, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
:I strongly oppose trimming the information here now for these reasons. It is unnecessary and misses the long-term plan for this series. The information you see now is only for 2017, which will be in the 2017 sub-article, while the Opposition to Donald Trump will have information throughout Trump's entire political career. Your argument of it being "unfair" to the reader is nonsense. We have many articles with dublicate information already. Your argument of it being unnecessary work for editors is also nonsense because I am the only editor making regular and major edits here (and I am happy with it this way). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:44, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
::Again, there is no personal "ownership" of articles. On a wiki, we need both editors to originate materials and editors to copy edit and cite check the materials. So, when Conservapedia has two different articles covering exactly the same thing, it makes more work for multiple people. It opens the possibility of "edit wars" over whether a sentence should be in one article or both articles or neither article.
::As for the reader, it is unfair and confusing to ask a reader to read the same length presentation in twice because you don't warn him that it is almost the same thing and that he has to read it twice because you decided to migrate the 2017 material early in the year. I don't understand your reasoning about why you must start an article early in 2017, have it drift into something different, and then at the end of 2017 try to merge the two different 2017 materials as a part of an archiving action. When I saw that you were starting the [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] article based on the section from this article, I thought it was like your move of the [[Donald Trump achievements: 2016 election and transition]] section. The article is getting too long to edit at 280,458 bytes, and I agree that [[Opposition to Donald Trump]] is the next logical piece to move to a sub-article. If you don't want a clean break, then a summary paragraph is logical to leave behind. If you did not think that my summary paragraph was optimal, write your own and we can edit it. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 06:45, 23 June 2017 (EDT)