Talk:Alaska's At-large congressional district: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>David Boothroyd
(deletion debate contribution)
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


:There is an issue over whether CZ should expand into the areas WP recently has in terms of elections (one of my specialties - see [[Paddington South (UK Parliament constituency)]] which I wrote). WP is aiming to have articles on every constituency for election to national legislatures and significant sub-national ones as well. However this is the sort of thing which traditional encyclopaedias have left to more specialist publications. It's not that there's not a lot to say about the issue, more a question of whether it is truly an encyclopaedia function. I don't have strong views and indeed I would love to write more comprehensive constituency articles. [[User:David Boothroyd|David Boothroyd]] 15:10, 7 November 2006 (CST)
:There is an issue over whether CZ should expand into the areas WP recently has in terms of elections (one of my specialties - see [[Paddington South (UK Parliament constituency)]] which I wrote). WP is aiming to have articles on every constituency for election to national legislatures and significant sub-national ones as well. However this is the sort of thing which traditional encyclopaedias have left to more specialist publications. It's not that there's not a lot to say about the issue, more a question of whether it is truly an encyclopaedia function. I don't have strong views and indeed I would love to write more comprehensive constituency articles. [[User:David Boothroyd|David Boothroyd]] 15:10, 7 November 2006 (CST)
The policy that I advocate, and which I want to articulate more clearly, is that if we can have a full set of articles of a certain type (as well as about broader/more important topics as well!), then we should.  We are not bound by the space requirements of a general encyclopedia; we have the disk space (and needn't worry about paper publishing costs) and we have more personnel than proprietary encyclopedias.  Therefore, the only question is whether we will, in the near- to medium-term, be able responsiblyto  maintain articles about all national election districts (or whatever the best catch-all term is).  Frankly, I don't see why not.  That's my off-the-cuff analysis, and I invite further analysis. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:18, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Revision as of 17:18, 7 November 2006

As an Alaskan, I must take issue with the notion that we should delete this article. Why should we? There is much useful information about Alaska's at-large congressional district--for instance, a list of Representatives from Alaska. --Larry Sanger 14:43, 7 November 2006 (CST)

There is an issue over whether CZ should expand into the areas WP recently has in terms of elections (one of my specialties - see Paddington South (UK Parliament constituency) which I wrote). WP is aiming to have articles on every constituency for election to national legislatures and significant sub-national ones as well. However this is the sort of thing which traditional encyclopaedias have left to more specialist publications. It's not that there's not a lot to say about the issue, more a question of whether it is truly an encyclopaedia function. I don't have strong views and indeed I would love to write more comprehensive constituency articles. David Boothroyd 15:10, 7 November 2006 (CST)

The policy that I advocate, and which I want to articulate more clearly, is that if we can have a full set of articles of a certain type (as well as about broader/more important topics as well!), then we should. We are not bound by the space requirements of a general encyclopedia; we have the disk space (and needn't worry about paper publishing costs) and we have more personnel than proprietary encyclopedias. Therefore, the only question is whether we will, in the near- to medium-term, be able responsiblyto maintain articles about all national election districts (or whatever the best catch-all term is). Frankly, I don't see why not. That's my off-the-cuff analysis, and I invite further analysis. --Larry Sanger 16:18, 7 November 2006 (CST)