Template talk:Constitutionnav

Hmmmm, seems like overkill given United States Constitution exists. But I would not argue for deletion. ħuman 04:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we need and article on the Third Amendment? Garrisoning soldiers in people's houses is not exactly a hot button issue. - π 04:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support OUR Troops. I'm all for repealing the third amendment.Conservative Punk 04:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured it could be useful so that we could have a way of organizing more detailed articles about the Constitution and have an easy way of navigating amongst them. Jsonitsac 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is: there are lots of redlinks in it. -- Nx / talk 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it will inspire editors to fix that problem, click the redlink and turn it into a bluelink. Jsonitsac 15:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The hard part will be coming with a way to write something that is at least slightly "on mission" about some of these things. I think some should just be altered to link to things we have, like "executive branch" to the POTUS article I think we have, "judicial" to the SCOTUS article, etc. ħuman 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and further to that, "Article One" isn't a very good article title to redlink to. ħuman 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that most of the links in this navbox link to the same page? ħuman 04:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)