| Revision as of 20:03, 27 April 2009 editQqqqqq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,929 edits →Article title?: re← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:02, 28 April 2009 edit undoAervanath (talk | contribs)13,901 edits →Article title?: close: movedNext edit → |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article title? == |
|
== Article title? == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was '''moved''' to ], and ] '''moved''' to ], hatnotes to be added to disambiguate -- ] (]) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
*If the other Michael Quigley is located at ], can't the Congressman be located at ] and the footballer at ]? ] (]) 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
*If the other Michael Quigley is located at ], can't the Congressman be located at ] and the footballer at ]? ] (]) 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
*I guess they can be. But is it the best solution? I'd like to see some evidence. I can see neither harm nor benefit in the proposal, so I'd leave it as is. ] (]) 09:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
*I guess they can be. But is it the best solution? I'd like to see some evidence. I can see neither harm nor benefit in the proposal, so I'd leave it as is. ] (]) 09:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
*Currently ] redirects to ], which is a disambig page. ] (]) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
*Currently ] redirects to ], which is a disambig page. ] (]) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
**Right. If both ] and ] go to the same place, why not just have one of each go to the politician and the athlete. Seems unnecessary to have a disambig page for this and more straightforward just to have a see-also message at the top of each bio article. ] (]) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
**Right. If both ] and ] go to the same place, why not just have one of each go to the politician and the athlete. Seems unnecessary to have a disambig page for this and more straightforward just to have a see-also message at the top of each bio article. ] (]) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
"Mr. Quigley is a heterosexual, but he has a large number of gay constituents and is supportive of gay causes. Recently, he played hockey in the Gay Games hosted in Chicago."
Is the following sentence really necessary? "Quigley did not receive the endorsements of any organized labor union in the 2006 election." It seems to me that if we apply the endorsement preferences of a special-interest groups (big labor, big business, Greenpeace, N.R.A., Planned Parenthood, etc.) to Quigley, then we should include it for all politicians or Board Commissioners as a matter of consistency.
