Talk:American Contract Bridge League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Contract bridge (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Mississippi (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Archives

[edit] USBF

When I was an active bridge player, I don't remember there being a United States Bridge Federation. The relationship among ACBL, USBF, and the World Bridge Federation, in terms of how teams from North America qualify for the Bermuda Bowl, should be explained by someone whose knowledge is more current than mine. JamesMLane 11:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-profit or not-for-profit

Our article on this type of entity is at Non-profit organization. Is there a reason to use the term "non-profit", which merely redirects there? JamesMLane t c 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed archiving

Archiving of talk-page threads is useful, even necessary, for talk pages that are very active. Otherwise, the page length becomes unwieldy. This page, however, sees little activity. I see no reason for archiving. It's true that the above comments have stood for four years and two years without response, but so what? Someone may come to this lightly trafficked article and have something useful to add on one of these points. As long as there's no issue of talk-page clutter, I believe they should remain.

I'm reverting the archiving of those two comments and the installation of automatic archiving. This is without prejudice to revisiting the subject when and if the talk page becomes suddenly active. JamesMLane t c 21:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export