Talk:Secretary of the Navy (U.S.): Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen m (Talk:Secretary of the Navy (United States) moved to Talk:Secretary of the Navy (U.S.): use U.S. form) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Handling the incumbent: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
This article has to be renamed so that a country is stated in the title. We have already been through these discussions on the Forum. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 21:32, 31 May 2008 (CDT) | This article has to be renamed so that a country is stated in the title. We have already been through these discussions on the Forum. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 21:32, 31 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
== Handling the incumbent == | |||
Since I saw a note about removing the Winter material, but not a link to a new page, I created a tab for "incumbent". For articles that speak specifically about the responsibiities of a position, it seems reasonable to use subtabs: | |||
* for the previous occupants of the post, as was done for [[Chief of Naval Operations]], | |||
* for the incumbent, as I am testing here. | |||
These both seem user-friendly ways of putting relevant background information into an easily accessible form. They also remind future authors of information that needs to be kept current, which might be less likely if there were only a separate page titled for the individual's name and a link somewhere in the text. | |||
With this method, which I regard as a text, an author that saw a piece of information relevant to the "secretary of the navy" could quickly decide if it is relevant to the position or a person,and then know where to go to put the information. | |||
I would not suggest using "incumbent" in articles that are principally about organizations rather than positions in the organization, although Related Articles might be a way to organize this information. | |||
Again, this is an experiment in presentation. Nothing is lost, while I did not immediately see to where the Winter material moved, just that it had been deleted. | |||
There do seem to be differences of opinion about the use of subtabs versus main page content. I believe, for example, in having, in the main article, only references/footnotes for inline citations; general reading, with no specific section to which it applies, seems more logical at a biblography or external links tab/subpage, with annotation. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:54, 1 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 1 June 2008
This article has to be renamed so that a country is stated in the title. We have already been through these discussions on the Forum. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:32, 31 May 2008 (CDT)
Handling the incumbent
Since I saw a note about removing the Winter material, but not a link to a new page, I created a tab for "incumbent". For articles that speak specifically about the responsibiities of a position, it seems reasonable to use subtabs:
- for the previous occupants of the post, as was done for Chief of Naval Operations,
- for the incumbent, as I am testing here.
These both seem user-friendly ways of putting relevant background information into an easily accessible form. They also remind future authors of information that needs to be kept current, which might be less likely if there were only a separate page titled for the individual's name and a link somewhere in the text.
With this method, which I regard as a text, an author that saw a piece of information relevant to the "secretary of the navy" could quickly decide if it is relevant to the position or a person,and then know where to go to put the information.
I would not suggest using "incumbent" in articles that are principally about organizations rather than positions in the organization, although Related Articles might be a way to organize this information.
Again, this is an experiment in presentation. Nothing is lost, while I did not immediately see to where the Winter material moved, just that it had been deleted.
There do seem to be differences of opinion about the use of subtabs versus main page content. I believe, for example, in having, in the main article, only references/footnotes for inline citations; general reading, with no specific section to which it applies, seems more logical at a biblography or external links tab/subpage, with annotation. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:54, 1 June 2008 (CDT)