Talk:BDSM
Interesdom (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Tanos says@: "Ok, no objections. So I've copied the Wikipedia BDSM article across. It still needs making more relevant to the UK scene, but I think it's a very good starting point, that a total newcomer could read through to get an overview, without having to follow lots of cross-references to piece everything together." | Tanos says@: "Ok, no objections. So I've copied the Wikipedia BDSM article across. It still needs making more relevant to the UK scene, but I think it's a very good starting point, that a total newcomer could read through to get an overview, without having to follow lots of cross-references to piece everything together." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, it is a good start but is too much and some sub-sections could end up being in contention with the specific subject page. I think from now on, we should be trying to trim down the text that is there (making sure the content is in the section page) to make this much more a of quick-read overview, while possibly adding in any missing sub-sections. I can't think how to trim down the History sub-section: I think it should be pulled out as a new section entirely. Depending on who gets involved, History could become a big area and might even need a Category. | ||
| + | --[[User:Interesdom|Interesdom]] 12:47, 2 Apr 2005 (BST) | ||
Revision as of 07:47, 2 April 2005
What do people feel about copying the much larger Wikipedia BDSM article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM and using that as a starting point for the BDSM entry? It's much more comprehensive and looks pretty accurate to me.
Tanos says@: "Ok, no objections. So I've copied the Wikipedia BDSM article across. It still needs making more relevant to the UK scene, but I think it's a very good starting point, that a total newcomer could read through to get an overview, without having to follow lots of cross-references to piece everything together."
Yes, it is a good start but is too much and some sub-sections could end up being in contention with the specific subject page. I think from now on, we should be trying to trim down the text that is there (making sure the content is in the section page) to make this much more a of quick-read overview, while possibly adding in any missing sub-sections. I can't think how to trim down the History sub-section: I think it should be pulled out as a new section entirely. Depending on who gets involved, History could become a big area and might even need a Category. --Interesdom 12:47, 2 Apr 2005 (BST)
