Thanks for your edits to Liberal, but as that's a disambiguation page, it should really only contain minimal information to help readers find the actual article that they're looking for. MOS:DAB describes how disambiguation pages are supposed to look. I can understand why you added the info, though, because that page was already way out-of-scope. I've cleaned up a little but it needs more. Anyway, if you've got info to add, you can add it to the pages linked at Liberal.
- Hi Adrian
- I was thinking the same after I made the edit. That page seems like a bad place to collect information about liberalism in different countries. I decided to correct the wrong information first and see how to clean up the page later. --Tervan (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes I think that was a good edit. Linking to all the parties via Liberal Party helps keep the page sane and removes the arbitrariness of listing some parties but not others. I think it's a tricky disambiguation page because a reader might not know exactly what they mean by "liberal", so the page needs a little more explanation than is typical for a disambiguation page. I've made a few more tweaks myself, hopefully explained in the edit summary: . Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you've seen the latest additions to the Parthenogenesis page. You removed an "out-of-the-blue" Jesus part from the page, and subsequently there have been edits to further de-emphasize that material. There is now a big chunk of material that I suspect might not have been added if that older text were still there. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on what can be done to stabilize that page in a way that suits everyone as much as possible; my best suggestion is to revert to before your edit, which at least seemed to be fairly stable for a while. (Ugh!) Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I'm not sure what you are suggesting about the talk page, we can't alter what other people have written there, only respond to it. It's a weird situation, clearly with two very different points of view involved, where it is very difficult to guess how stable a version will be. I think that the current hatnote "For the Christian dogma ..." is too subtle for people to notice, and that there needs to be a clear explanation of why that isn't the biological situation, but it is, as you pointed out, very difficult to find a place on the page for that explanation to sit. I'm out of ideas. (I do think that the wording within that little paragraph was good though.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)