Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Homosexuality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Agree) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::Completely agree, but I haven't read many of them so would rather someone else cut down the list. Would you be able to do it?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:05, 3 November 2008 (EST) | ::Completely agree, but I haven't read many of them so would rather someone else cut down the list. Would you be able to do it?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:05, 3 November 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::I think most of my opinions on these articles might not be appreciated. Try this- pick out what seem to be the main articles and link to those. If an article only consists of a quotation or two, then don't link it. If you go through Conservative's body of work you can probably quickly separate them- a number of these articles are short blurbs consisting only of a few quotations or advertisements for blogs he has quid pro quo linking agreements with (although I think some of these might be deleted). [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:02, 3 November 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 17:02, November 3, 2008
I've created this following the discussion on the Homosexuality talk page. Some points:
- Clearly it's too long - at the moment I've put in most of the pages from Category:Homosexuality, but it should be pared down to just the most important pages before it's used anywhere.
- Ideally there would be a better picture - suggestions welcome.
- And as ever, any improvements to design or organisation will be much appreciated.
--CPalmer 07:10, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I've also added it to Homosexual rights advocacy temporarily, so we can see how it looks in situ.--CPalmer 07:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- That's long, long, long. Maybe you don't need to shoehorn in all of Conservative's "homosexuality and ____" pages. Corry 10:03, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- Completely agree, but I haven't read many of them so would rather someone else cut down the list. Would you be able to do it?--CPalmer 10:05, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- I think most of my opinions on these articles might not be appreciated. Try this- pick out what seem to be the main articles and link to those. If an article only consists of a quotation or two, then don't link it. If you go through Conservative's body of work you can probably quickly separate them- a number of these articles are short blurbs consisting only of a few quotations or advertisements for blogs he has quid pro quo linking agreements with (although I think some of these might be deleted). Corry 12:02, 3 November 2008 (EST)