Talk:Bicameral legislature: Difference between revisions
imported>Steve Mount No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Well, the definition of "bicameral" is a legislature with two houses, so "bicameral legislature" is actually redundant... but I have no objection to moving this to "Bicameral legislature" if it fits better into the grand scheme, and then making "bicameral" redirect to the new article. --[[User:Steve Mount|steve802]] 13:19, 8 March 2007 (CST) | Well, the definition of "bicameral" is a legislature with two houses, so "bicameral legislature" is actually redundant... but I have no objection to moving this to "Bicameral legislature" if it fits better into the grand scheme, and then making "bicameral" redirect to the new article. --[[User:Steve Mount|steve802]] 13:19, 8 March 2007 (CST) | ||
"Bicameral" is an adjective, not a noun, right? If so, then since you are not describing the mere quality of bicamerality, but bicameral legislatures (you give several examples), I think the article is better placed under the noun. Unless we can speak of "a bicameral." ? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:26, 8 March 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 19:26, 8 March 2007
Since you are actually discussing bicameral legislatures, isn't that where this article should live? --Larry Sanger 22:06, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Well, the definition of "bicameral" is a legislature with two houses, so "bicameral legislature" is actually redundant... but I have no objection to moving this to "Bicameral legislature" if it fits better into the grand scheme, and then making "bicameral" redirect to the new article. --steve802 13:19, 8 March 2007 (CST)
"Bicameral" is an adjective, not a noun, right? If so, then since you are not describing the mere quality of bicamerality, but bicameral legislatures (you give several examples), I think the article is better placed under the noun. Unless we can speak of "a bicameral." ? --Larry Sanger 19:26, 8 March 2007 (CST)