Difference between revisions of "Talk:Supreme Court Candidates, 2010"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(The titles in your structure obscure the politics. For example, "qualifications" have little to do with political factors.) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::I don't follow --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:51, 10 April 2010 (EDT) | ::I don't follow --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:51, 10 April 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Please try harder, then. The titles in your structure obscure the politics. For example, "qualifications" have little to do with political factors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 11 April 2010 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:33, April 11, 2010
A suggestion about layout
You might consider putting three headers under any candidate Qualifications, Pro's, and Con's. all likely candidates will have things worth noting in these three fields. --Brendanw 23:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
- While I welcome good structure, I think your suggestion would obscure the political factors.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
- I don't follow --Brendanw 23:51, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
- Please try harder, then. The titles in your structure obscure the politics. For example, "qualifications" have little to do with political factors.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 11 April 2010 (EDT)