Talk:Executive Order 13514

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.218.36.152 (talk) at 00:54, 7 November 2011 (What?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There are a few issues with the content of the page.

First, the title is overly capitalized and uses an unnecessary abbreviation. "Energy neutral federal buildings (United States)" or "Energy neutral United States government buildings" would appear and read more naturally.

Secondly, there appears to be too much bolding scattered around, especially in the first section. Selected quotes might be used with a {{wikisourcepar}} link to the full EO.

"Progress" section is only verbatim quotes with no explanatory text or framing.

Lastly I can't tell if the final section is all quoted or not. Either way the choice of words is not appropriate. Phrases like "Our pace since the first 1973 OPEC oil embargo has been much too slow." are opinions that need to be cited to their source if they are quotes or removed. In reading this section I cannot get away from the feeling that author(s) want to convince me of something, which is out of place in an encyclopedia articel. If this were changed to a neutral analysis it would make the entire article FAR better. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Executive Order wikilink to help the reader.

Add Executive Order wikilink to help the reader. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. We already have a link to the relevant executive order; why is a link to the general concept of "executive order" relevant? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is the reader to put it ("13514") in context? It does no harm, and is helpful. I really can't see any problem. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"13514" doesn't have a context. Executive Order 13514 has a context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are different kinds of links with different purposes, and s:Executive Order 13514 doesn't explain what an Executive Order is (the context). 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it important to understanding the article what an Executive order (lower case) is? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It is why there is a wikipedia article. 141.218.36.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Why is it important enough to violate general linking guidelines? At least, you're not wikilinking every word any more, but why add a wikilink (with bad capitalization, I might add) [[Executive ordet (United States)|Executive Order]] when the relevance is primarily to [[s:Executive Order 13514|]]? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious what you're doing wrong to anyone with basic knowledge of English. As for the other articles, [[Executive order (United States)|Executive Order]] [[s:Executive Order 13514|13514]] violates both WP:EGG and the "sea of blue" standard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose that includes a wikilink to Executive order (United States)? Please don't use arrows. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be any wikilink to Executive order (United States)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful to the reader, WP:Audience. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harmful to Wikipedia as a whole, and to the WP:Audience by adding irrelevant links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Executive_Order_13514&oldid=459381745"