Talk:Ann Arbor Railroad v. United States: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>David Finn (question) |
imported>David Finn (reply) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
This article about a 1930 legal decision appears to be in fact about a guy who was 3 at the time and not involved. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | This article about a 1930 legal decision appears to be in fact about a guy who was 3 at the time and not involved. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
:Yes, that's why we categorize it as a [[secondary source]]. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | :Yes, that's why we categorize it as a [[secondary source]]. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
::''See also Interstate Commerce Commission'' | ::''See also Interstate Commerce Commission'' | ||
::It has been that way for a year and a half. The article does not mention the subject of the article at all. Is there any reason not to nominate this article for removal? [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | ::It has been that way for a year and a half. The article does not mention the subject of the article at all. Is there any reason not to nominate this article for removal? [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::Whoops, sorry for my poor use of pronouns, David. I meant to say "That is why historians categorize the source as a secondary source." I did not mean to imply that "We" meant CZ and that "it" meant the article. So I went ahead and did a CZ categorization of the article by creating the metadata. | |||
:::Regarding a removal, I would recommend to the EC that if they decide to remove it from MainSpace that it be moved to my user space; that the talk page be retained; that the links to the article be updated to point to the article in my user space (or that a redirect here be made to point to the article in my user space). I, personally as the author and as a history editor, would not recommend removal. The article is basically a lemma article now. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Fair enough. In a lemma article the main page contains a transclusion of the definition, if that is the correct way to put it. That isn't the case with this one but I can probably make things easier by doing it manually. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 15:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:17, 13 December 2011
This article about a 1930 legal decision appears to be in fact about a guy who was 3 at the time and not involved. David Finn 08:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why we categorize it as a secondary source. Russell D. Jones 12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- We don't categorize it as anything yet because it comes from the uncategorized pages page. Secondary source is a lemma article started by Howard rather than a policy. Regardless of the status of the source that is printed the current text of this article apart from that source is:
- Huntington was an instructor in government, Harvard University.
- See also Interstate Commerce Commission
- It has been that way for a year and a half. The article does not mention the subject of the article at all. Is there any reason not to nominate this article for removal? David Finn 14:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, sorry for my poor use of pronouns, David. I meant to say "That is why historians categorize the source as a secondary source." I did not mean to imply that "We" meant CZ and that "it" meant the article. So I went ahead and did a CZ categorization of the article by creating the metadata.
- Regarding a removal, I would recommend to the EC that if they decide to remove it from MainSpace that it be moved to my user space; that the talk page be retained; that the links to the article be updated to point to the article in my user space (or that a redirect here be made to point to the article in my user space). I, personally as the author and as a history editor, would not recommend removal. The article is basically a lemma article now. Russell D. Jones 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. In a lemma article the main page contains a transclusion of the definition, if that is the correct way to put it. That isn't the case with this one but I can probably make things easier by doing it manually. David Finn 15:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)