Talk:Executive Order 13514

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)

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)

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)

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)

"13514" doesn't have a context. Executive Order 13514 has a context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Why is it important to understanding the article what an Executive order (lower case) is? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? It is why there is a wikipedia article. 141.218.36.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

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)

What? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why should there be any wikilink to Executive order (United States)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Helpful to the reader, WP:Audience. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Harmful to Wikipedia as a whole, and to the WP:Audience by adding irrelevant links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you expect me to believe including a wikilink to Executive order (United States) is "Harmful to Wikipedia as a whole, and to" its readers, you are going to have to explain yourself. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) Seriously Art, if you are going to continue making wild claims, you must back-them-up with public evidence. 99.56.120.249 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "wild claim". The link is just bad. It's likely that a link to executive order would be appropriate in an article on Executive Order 13514, but why would it possibly be appropriate in this article unless they were to be the same? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For example, in contrast with California's statutory Instruments, example ... http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17008 99.19.41.186 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly see no problem with having it linked, as a non-american I have no idea about the details of an exectutive order to it seems useful to me. However Arthur and Mr. Ip, you both need to stop your current behaviour. As far as I can see you are both doing a considerable amount of edit warring over trivial things on a number of article and it has to end, before you both find yourself blocked--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with adding the link too - I'm not American and have no real understanding of the general concept of an executive order, and it seems like exactly the kind of thing we should be linking for explanatory purposes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I have semi-protected the article to stop the edit-war - the registered edit-warrior is already blocked. (And in case anyone thinks I'm too involved after having voiced an opinion, I have protected it in the state that I disagree with). Once there is a consensus concerning the proposed change, someone can make (or not make) the change and the article can be unprotected -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support article protection - I don't think you're too involved. In terms of the link,if I was talking about a Statutory Instrument issued by the UK government, I'd link to Statutory Instrument (UK). Or if referring to Auctorem Fidei, I might link to Papal bull. It's not like it's totally obvious what it is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored the link (with a lower-case e, hope that is right). I find the link helpful. We already have a link to the relevant executive order misses the point: that is a link to the text of this particular EO; it doesn't explain EO in general William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I've boldly replaced the link in the initial sentence with the {{Executive Order}} template which wikilinks Executive Order and Wikisource links 13514. Revert if this doesn't seem reasonable, but I think it's a useful way to handle this. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the wikilink is warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Would this apply to Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database also? 99.190.83.211 (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See how this went on Fleet vehicle too. 99.181.131.215 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)