This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greek love article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Greek love was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
== I take back all comments here ==
Let this be whatever anyone wants as I could care less now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Discussion with sock
|
---|
==Untitled==
The articles is what it always was: a set of content forks and an opportunity for original research, owned by a gang of individuals from quite dysfunctional and almost moribund "projects". It deserves a third AFD nomination, hopefully drawing on a wider, less one-eyed group of people. McOoee (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Let me know here what you think of these proposals. I'd appreciate your help with it. That's up to you. Thanks. McOoee (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Good advice. The transfer process could be very slow and tedious. Another option is to transfer material to article talk pages and let contributors there decide how best to use it. I'll try to transfer something every day, either to articles or talk pages. McOoee (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Re tag about merging English Romanticism section with Romanticism article: No I don't agree with that. The section as it is now is well suited to inclusion in Pederasty in ancient Greece as part of a larger reception section for that article. McOoee (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) However, there is no reason why you shouldn't leave a note on the talk page for Romanticism letting contributors know that this material is here and that you are considering this merge. McOoee (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, I'm not at all concerned with those specifics really. Feel free to make that what you feel is appropriate!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I also disagree with your proposal to merge the Renaissance section with other articles. It's well-balanced and well fitted to Pederasty in ancient Greece#Reception: Greek love, where this whole article properly belongs. That is how I am editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McOoee (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Uhm...yes to the last part. I agree with the change to Cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
|
I found that the mixture of citation styles has led to excessive unnecessary duplication in references, while the bibliography list is incomplete. I'm proposing use of the ref name system for multiple citations, with inline page numbers, and have made a start on this. However, there's a lot of work to go. Please either help out or bear with me! Bjenks (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)