Talk:Bicameral legislature: Difference between revisions
imported>Steve Mount No edit summary |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
Since you are actually discussing [[bicameral legislature]]s, isn't that where this article should live? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:06, 7 March 2007 (CST) | Since you are actually discussing [[bicameral legislature]]s, isn't that where this article should live? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:06, 7 March 2007 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 06:08, 25 September 2007
Since you are actually discussing bicameral legislatures, isn't that where this article should live? --Larry Sanger 22:06, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Well, the definition of "bicameral" is a legislature with two houses, so "bicameral legislature" is actually redundant... but I have no objection to moving this to "Bicameral legislature" if it fits better into the grand scheme, and then making "bicameral" redirect to the new article. --steve802 13:19, 8 March 2007 (CST)
"Bicameral" is an adjective, not a noun, right? If so, then since you are not describing the mere quality of bicamerality, but bicameral legislatures (you give several examples), I think the article is better placed under the noun. Unless we can speak of "a bicameral." ? --Larry Sanger 19:26, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Point taken. I will do a move, then. Would a redirect on the word by itself be useful, too? I think so, but I don't want to conflict with any developed/developing standards or policies. Thanks! (Edit: OK, I was expecting there to be a Move button or link somewhere - I just did something similar on a Wiki at work, so I thought I knew how to do it ... but I don't see that.)steve802 22:44, 8 March 2007 (CST)
I see that you or someone else changed the article title - thanks. I've updated the pages that pointed to the old name. --steve802 08:23, 9 March 2007 (CST)