Changes

::::::::Trump promised an action-packed 100 days, so I can see how Conservapedia worked hard to document it in detail.  Now that we have a cabinet in place and continue to have a very large federal work force, what is our criteria for determining that some achievement is included in this article? If a scientist at NIH discovers a cure for cancer, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? If an infrastructure project which was planned during the Bush Administration, and built mostly during the Obama administration, has a dedication ceremony this year, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"?  Let's agree on something to avoid future editor conflict and avoid confusing the readers.  Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

::::::::Trump promised an action-packed 100 days, so I can see how Conservapedia worked hard to document it in detail.  Now that we have a cabinet in place and continue to have a very large federal work force, what is our criteria for determining that some achievement is included in this article? If a scientist at NIH discovers a cure for cancer, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? If an infrastructure project which was planned during the Bush Administration, and built mostly during the Obama administration, has a dedication ceremony this year, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"?  Let's agree on something to avoid future editor conflict and avoid confusing the readers.  Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::This article and the "Baseball" article are very different articles. One talk about the sport, and the other lists the achievements in the Trump Administration and Congress in advancing conservative ideals and policies. No achievement is too small or insignificant to include here. It is ridiculous to create silly "criteria" which will lead certain editors to oppose including an obvious achievement because, for example, it "doesn't spend as much money as the formal criteria states". '''''Whether to include these achievements will be decided on a case-by-case basis, as I have been saying all along.''''' Is this not enough for you? All of your examples can easily be solved if we decide them on a case-by-case basis. Whenever I see an achievement that might not be worth posting in the article, I add it to the talk page in the hope that people will comment on it. This is a case-by-case basis. Finding some "criteria" will just waste our time and lead to more harm than good. There are no formal criteria that define what is an achievement ''other than if it advances conservative ideals''. That is the only guideline in including information.

:::::::::This article and the "Baseball" article are very different articles. One talk about the sport, and the other lists the achievements in the Trump Administration and Congress in advancing conservative ideals and policies. No achievement is too small or insignificant to include here. It is ridiculous to create silly "criteria" which will lead certain editors to oppose including an obvious achievement because, for example, it "doesn't spend as much money as the formal criteria states". '''''Whether to include these achievements will be decided on a case-by-case basis, as I have been saying all along.''''' Is this not enough for you? All of your examples can easily be solved if we decide them on a case-by-case basis. Whenever I see an achievement that might not be worth posting in the article, I add it to the talk page in the hope that people will comment on it. This is a case-by-case basis. Finding some "criteria" will just waste our time and lead to more harm than good. There are no formal criteria that define what is an achievement ''other than if it advances conservative ideals''. That is the only guideline in including information.

:::::::::And once again, the "first 100 days" is complete garbage. I am not making any distinction on the first 100 days and the rest of the four years. Sure, politicians try to make their achievements in the 100 days look grand, but achievements are achievemnts regardless of the date in a presidency, and the time in which they are made makes no difference in advancing conservative policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::And once again, the "first 100 days" is complete garbage. I am not making any distinction on the first 100 days and the rest of the four years. Sure, politicians try to make their achievements in the 100 days look grand, but achievements are achievements regardless of the date in a presidency, and the time in which they are made makes no difference in advancing conservative policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

::::::::::If you are proposing "Whether to include these achievements will be decided by JDano on a case-by-case basis" I could agree! I suspect you meant something else, so having agreed upon criteria will avoid future conflict.  One technique is to quantify things without listing them.  For example, you could go to whitehouse.gov and report that President Trump has issued X proclamations, Y executive orders and Z presidential decision memos without listing them all.  In your opinion, what are the 10 most important questions a reader would come to this article to answer?  You are hiding those answers by listing proclamations of "National Day of Patriotic Devotion", "National School Choice Week" and "Loyalty Day." Let's find some meaningful criteria that produce a useful and factual article. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:42, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

== VA to deal with under/unused buildings ==

== VA to deal with under/unused buildings ==