Talk:List of agriculture topics

Untitled[edit]

"These should be the most basic topics in the field--topics about which we'd like to have articles soon" Does this mean we should cut the links to existing articles? Paleorthid 23:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I set this page, this was traditionaly a type of page where we listed currently existing articles and articles to write. Needless to say, the page was basically all red and empty links :-)

The goal was at the same time to help people to find articles and to suggest new ones to write. Hence, all links were valid.

Such pages have slowly fall out of use.

I understood that on some wikipedias (I know not if it is the case on the english wikipedia, this may be worth checking), some big specialised portal pages have been done. For exemple, here is the starting list on fr : w:fr:Wikipédia:Liste des portails.

Here is the page on indian world w:fr:Wikipédia:Portail Monde indien

Or on japanese world w:fr:Wikipédia:Egyptopedia.

I suspect replacing the current page by such a portal might be a great idea :-) If no one does it in the coming month, I'll do it next year.

SweetLittleFluffyThing

Oops, I just created this portal, it is category:Agronomy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs

) 12:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{farming}} infobox template within list is redundant[edit]

Using {{Agriculture}}/{{farming}} within this list is internally redundant. The template is getting out of control, the longer it gets the less useful it becomes, and WP:FARM is recommending the use of simply {{portalpar|Agropedia}} in lieu of the infobox.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list page and the portal and the template need to be fixed. The template should be shorten down. This list should be expanded. The portal should be updated. Please stop removing the navigation template from article pages. the portal link is already on it and using nav boxes is standared practice. Portal links in place of nav boxes is a bad idea. WAS 4.250 19:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not on a list it's not. The Template is ridiculously long and more importantly it's redundant. This is a list, why does it need a template containing a very similar list?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I appreciate your trimming of the template, still a lot of fat we could work on though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]