Talk:Conservative links

Joaquín, thanks for creating this article. --Crocoite 10:22, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Reorder in Alpha order?

It would be easier to follow the topics if they were in Alphabetical order. What do you think? --Crocoite 10:32, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your comment. Please do whatever you think that could improve the article. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:01, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Locking?

Since you are now linking this article to dozens of others, I suggest it be locked...or maybe turned into a template? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:36, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

This is an awesome page. Thanks for all the work on it, guys. I was wondering why Evolution is listed under Sexuality, though. DanH 23:58, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Other Thoughts for inclusion

Creation Study

• Answers in Genesis
• Institute for Creation Research

Biblical History

• Tektonics.Org
• The Catholic Encyclopedia

Learn together 14:52, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

Image overkill?

I can't help it, but am I seriously the only one who thinks that this page has too many images? And worse, some images look somewhat out of place ("candle" next to Entertainment and "Conservapedians world" next to Sexuality?)

Suggestion: Move the picture from "Arts" to "History", get rid of the cannon that is currently there, and look for more fitting images for the sections mentioned above (Rush for "Entertainment", for example). Optionally, look for somebody who is more representative than Sher Zieve for the "News" section. Some FOX anchorman maybe? --Jenkins 08:42, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

A few thoughts

The definition of virgin given on this page needs to be changed. As it is now it is not correct; it is not the marital status of someone that defines whether or not he or she is a virgin. Second, I don't feel like the large "OURS" picture at the top of the article is appropriate at all--there are beautiful people in all parts of the political spectrum, and that picture feels like it is needlessly going after sex-appeal and objectifying women. Jinkas 14:36, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Please, do not limit yourself to "thoughts". You may also collaborate. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:12, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

I usually would, but the page is locked for editing and I'm not a sysop. I decided to leave my thoughts here and hope that someone with sysop abilities could implement them for me. Jinkas 15:20, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Any chance either of these changes can be made? It's been a couple of days. Jinkas 16:48, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your interest. You may place here your definition of virgin. Also you may place here a new pic to use at the beginning of the article. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:11, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

A virgin is a person that has not had sexual relations. And I didn't say that a different picture should be placed at the beginning of the article, only that the current picture be removed for reasons posted above. I don't feel like it needs to be replaced with something different; the article is very picture-heavy as it is. Jinkas 17:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

We need a better difinition. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 19:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)