Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply
Line 27: Line 27:  
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on.  I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly).  We should not repeat the same mistake.  Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
 
::The description should be at the beginning, even if it's a brief one and there's a more detailed one later on.  I've often criticised Wikipedia's ID article for not being an article ''about'' ID, but about ''what's wrong with'' ID (supposedly).  We should not repeat the same mistake.  Encyclopedia articles should start of explaining what something is first.
 
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::: Philip, your multiple variations have insignificant differences.  All your variations are prohibited in government schools, and censored by [[liberals]].
 +
 +
::: If you'd like to propose a concise definition for a footnote, as I have above, then I'd be in favor of that.  But I'm against anything that obscures, displaces, or dilutes the more fundamental point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,482

edits

Navigation menu