Talk:Political positions of Scott Walker
Latest comment: 8 years ago by HughD in topic Article's subject
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page: • Scott Walker (politician) Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Scott Walker (politician) Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article's subject edit
This is not an article on Walker's political positions, but rather an article on Walker's actions as a governor. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article should be moved to Governorship of Scott Walker. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- That does not sound like a half-bad idea. I think I'll start that article and begin working on it. Good idea! PrairieKid (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- It needs to be merged back with Scott Walker, and seek consensus for any massive restructuring. See also WP:OWN, and have some consideration for other editors' opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let's have that merge discussion. First off, the entire idea behind WP:BOLD is that there isn't a need for consensus for edits that are somewhat routine, follow precedence and don't push any of the rules. That's why I did all of this before. There are literally dozens of these articles built for the same purpose. I just assumed this article would not cause any additional controversy. Now that it has, following WP:BOLD, I am happy to discuss it. Why is it you think having this article is a bad idea? Is there a reason to go against precedence? I need something.
- As far as WP:OWN, I have been more than happy to have a discussion with you (and any other editor, for that matter) about policy and the most effective way of writing the article. I am NOT more than happy to be called names, be spoken down to or to simply be negated every time I do something. Please, be WP:CIVIL, have a discussion and let's have a cup of coffee. PrairieKid (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
See also Talk: Scott Walker (politician)#RfC regarding massive changes - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I expected to see additional discussion in the existing talk page thread before a split. I was surprised and disappointed at the split. Then I was disappointed when I noticed content had been dropped in the split. Thank you for your support for a merge discussion. Would you support a bold merge? Hugh (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)