Talk:U.S. Constitution: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen (good idea) |
imported>Steve Mount (→Text?) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I think the actual text of the Constitution should be somewhere in CZ. In Wikipedia, it is in the Wikisource or some such thing. Any equivalent in CZ, or should this article just include the text? In my paper encyclopedia, the Constitution entry has the full text, if that's of any use in deciding... [[User:Steve Mount|Steve Mount]] 14:54, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | I think the actual text of the Constitution should be somewhere in CZ. In Wikipedia, it is in the Wikisource or some such thing. Any equivalent in CZ, or should this article just include the text? In my paper encyclopedia, the Constitution entry has the full text, if that's of any use in deciding... [[User:Steve Mount|Steve Mount]] 14:54, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::good idea! should it be the raw or annotated version? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | ::good idea! should it be the raw or annotated version? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 15:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:::If it is a separate article (U.S. Constitution (text) ?), then, I think it should probably be annotated - with links to this article and other articles specifically addressing terms and sections (like [[Amendment 27]] and [[letter of marque]]), as well as notes about superceded sections. I have an unannotated version at [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt] and an HTML version that could be the basis for an annotated version at [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html]. Getting the text is not a problem - figuring out where to put it in CZ (would this be setting a precedent?) is the bigger question in my mind. [[User:Steve Mount|Steve Mount]] 10:11, 4 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
=="Main Article"== | =="Main Article"== | ||
It is common on Wikipedia to do as I've done on this page and have "Main Article blah blah" for something treated from a high level, like Article 1. Any opinions on whether it is better to create a "main article" to discuss Article 1 in more detail, or to discuss it in more detail on this page? [[User:Steve Mount|steve802]] 22:54, 1 April 2007 (CDT) | It is common on Wikipedia to do as I've done on this page and have "Main Article blah blah" for something treated from a high level, like Article 1. Any opinions on whether it is better to create a "main article" to discuss Article 1 in more detail, or to discuss it in more detail on this page? [[User:Steve Mount|steve802]] 22:54, 1 April 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 09:11, 4 May 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Politics Workgroup, History Workgroup, Law Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories] |
Article status | Developed article: complete or nearly so |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Petréa Mitchell |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Text?
I think the actual text of the Constitution should be somewhere in CZ. In Wikipedia, it is in the Wikisource or some such thing. Any equivalent in CZ, or should this article just include the text? In my paper encyclopedia, the Constitution entry has the full text, if that's of any use in deciding... Steve Mount 14:54, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
- good idea! should it be the raw or annotated version? Richard Jensen 15:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
- If it is a separate article (U.S. Constitution (text) ?), then, I think it should probably be annotated - with links to this article and other articles specifically addressing terms and sections (like Amendment 27 and letter of marque), as well as notes about superceded sections. I have an unannotated version at [1] and an HTML version that could be the basis for an annotated version at [2]. Getting the text is not a problem - figuring out where to put it in CZ (would this be setting a precedent?) is the bigger question in my mind. Steve Mount 10:11, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- good idea! should it be the raw or annotated version? Richard Jensen 15:19, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
"Main Article"
It is common on Wikipedia to do as I've done on this page and have "Main Article blah blah" for something treated from a high level, like Article 1. Any opinions on whether it is better to create a "main article" to discuss Article 1 in more detail, or to discuss it in more detail on this page? steve802 22:54, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Dates
I guess this is less a question about this article than it is about CZ in general - it is common Wikipedia practice to linkify dates and years. Is this discouraged in CZ? Also, is there a standard date format? I see some in this article were added as DD MMM YYYY, and some of my original entries are in MMM DD, YYYY format. (steve802 12:16, 2 March 2007 (CST))
- Politics Category Check
- General Category Check
- History Category Check
- Law Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Politics Advanced Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Law Advanced Articles
- Law Nonstub Articles
- Law Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Politics Developed Articles
- History Developed Articles
- Law Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- History Developing Articles
- Law Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Politics Stub Articles
- History Stub Articles
- Law Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Politics External Articles
- History External Articles
- Law External Articles
- Politics Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Law Underlinked Articles
- Politics Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- History Cleanup
- Law Cleanup