| Line 229: |
Line 229: |
| | :::::::::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) | | :::::::::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) | | ::::::::::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) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::::This page certainly has grown to an amazing size! One issue I'm seeing, however, is that there really is too much. One of the "advertising points" of CP is that we don't ramble on, taking up large amounts of space and in so doing, bore our readers. While a fantastic job has been done at documenting each thing he has done, facilitated, or in some way enabled, I wonder if this is getting to be too much. Perhaps as we go along, some of the more minor parts should be trimmed down. When writing a resume, many people advise that you keep it to one page. Write some detail about each topic, and stop at the end of the page. As more things are added, some details must be cut out, to maintain that size. Eventually, even job positions may start being removed, just to make space. We don't need to go to this extreme, but perhaps as time goes on, some "fat" as JDano called it should be trimmed down a little. I doubt most of our readers will go through all of this anyway, so perhaps we should try to work towards making the important points more noticeable. |
| | + | ::::::::::That said, I think a pretty good job of keeping each entry short and to the point has been done. I wonder if we just have too many points. At over 11,500 words, this just might be too much. It's Andy's site, so if he is fine with this length, then that's okay; I'm just concerned that in a word where no one looks at page two of a Google search, we will loose readers before they get to the best points. I'm not saying we should slash huge amounts of information, but I wonder if there are some less important points which could be trimmed, or even removed now that better content is available. At the very least, perhaps we should focus more tightly on what Trump has directly done. For example, the entry under failures of "Due to confirmation delays in the Senate, many leaders of the agencies in charge of border security still had "acting" status well into Trump's presidency, something which prevented agencies from implementing stronger immigration enforcement policies." doesn't really relate to him. Others are resisting him, but that is not his fault. he could bow to their demands to get more cooperation, but that is not what he should be doing. |
| | + | ::::::::::When I was asked before if size was an issue I didn't have much of an opinion, but even skimming through this page takes quite a while! It's good to show all the great things he's done, but maybe we can trip it down a bit, and eliminate anythnig he didn't directly influence. Any thoughts? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 01:23, 25 June 2017 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| | == VA to deal with under/unused buildings == | | == VA to deal with under/unused buildings == |