4,193
edits
Talk:Quota: Difference between revisions
→Breaking this page up: why/how to break up this article.
(→Breaking this page up: why/how to break up this article.) |
|||
Line 12:
:::: @RobLa I think the Wikipedia article on the Droop quota is good enough to copy directly now. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 19:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Closed Limelike Curves}}: thanks for the heads up. It's been years (almost four of them, it seems) since I've thought about doing this. I kinda like steering people toward Wikipedia for concepts that aren't terribly controversial (because they're based on math, and it's not hard to establish their notability), and having the stuff that's more controversial over here (e.g. newer voting methods that are still being discussed by math nerds). We shouldn't be in the habit of copying entire articles out of English Wikipedia, but I suppose having stubs with identical/similar lede sections would be good. A new "[[Droop quota]]" article should (perhaps) have its summary copied from the "[[Quota]]" article here. I may just do that, but first I want to see the relative quality of the two choices. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 00:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||