Jump to content

Talk:Executive Schedule

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.30.47.138 (talk) at 15:31, 21 November 2021 (Is this per month or per year?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States: Government Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Dep. Sec., Commerce

"While not listed, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce is also at Level II of the Executive Schedule". So why not list it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I think I am going to break down each of the lower categories II-V by department.Pracpol (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cannot edit anymore--there's too much right now. --RWilliamKing 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not a law-enforcement stub, but a federal government stub.--RWilliamKing 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archivist of the United States

The "Archivist of the United States" appears to be listed twice, once under Level III and once under Level V. I don't know which one is correct, but obviously the position should only be listed under one section. 18.96.6.79 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move

There was no explanation given for the disambiguation "(US government)" and I don't see why there needs to be one, so I moved the article back. Hekerui (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More: To disambiguate the title one should show a need - I searched for other Wiki articles that one could mix up with this one, but there are none, so I don't see a reason to distinguish between this article and a generic one. We don't make article titles more complicated without good reason. Hekerui (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think "Executive Schedule" might be just a little bit vague? There are millions of them in the world; just why should a WP article be title with such a vague, generic name under the circumstances. I could call an article Front Lawn (ah, it's my front lawn—didn't you realise?). Or more seriously, I could start an article called "State" ... ah, actually it's about the concept of state in India, and you find out when you get to the article. Or "President" ... of Switzerland. Tony (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it, link an article on an executive schedule or give a reliable source that there are notable subjects like this one named the same way for other countries who just have not yet had articles made on them, so we better create a disambiguation page. This was shown to be necessary for "State" and "President", but not yet for this article, so why add complication without evidence it's needed? Best regards Hekerui (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick look at google hits strongly suggests that the title is misleading. For example, this this of generic acronyms, this, and this. Plus much more. Tony (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last two are variations on the word shedule which I don't believe warrant a Wiki article, but Executive Schedule is a proper name. Hekerui (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Readers should not arrive at this article from a link or a category list to find that it's suddenly US-related, when the name suggests a generic topic. Tony (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Executive Schedule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this per month or per year?

It is not written if the said money is given per month or per year. --2003:74:CF2F:7765:4C42:5998:EAAB:2EDA (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioner of Interamal

i do not find interamal to be a word, and yet we've got a commissioner for it!

what is it a typo for? i presume "internal" something? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]