Template talk:LGBTQ sidebar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:14, 12 December 2006

	LGBTQ portal This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Refigure as footer

This very large template takes up too much real estate at the top of articles, sometimes pushing down other smaller (and more on-topic) series boxes such as Template:Gay rights. I would like to refigure it to sit on the bottom of articles, similar to the Template:Astronomy-footer or Template:Region. Any objections? ntennis 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better option may be to create multiple versions - similar to waht was done with Template:Chicano, Template:Chicano2 and Template:Chicano/Mexican-American, to allow options for use depending on the type of article. I suggest if you make more, that you provide links and examples at Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies (where this template seems to work quite well). - Davodd 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I made a draft at Template:LGBT-footer. Looking at the what links here list, I think the footer is more appropriate in nearly all instances, though I agree that the side box works nicely on the LGBT studies WikiProject page. I only updated polari and gay liberation for now.

A closer look at the links has made me wonder how these particular articles were decided on, and I made some changes to the list in adapting it. I would be happy to participate in a discussion aimed at finding the most appropriate links for such a template. ntennis 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bold?

Is there a way to make all (most?) of the text normal weight? I don't know, it's purely for looks, I find that bolding all text is annoying. Jesse 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. Jesse 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systemically incomplete

The last time I added "pederasty" to this template it succumbed to the knife of an on-the-barricades gay militant. However, unless it is properly represented here this template will be a political instrument rather than an academic guide. Do we want to be comprehensive or do we want to be politically correct? Haiduc 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Why should we start including specific paraphilia traits associated with certain LGBT folks in this template since it already is too large and needs a good trimming. It seems pederasty already falls under the aegis of homosexuality - which is listed. Davodd 03:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Maybe this converstion would be better served at the project talk page (link at top of this article) - Davodd 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the sixteen y/o London youth and his twenty four y/o boyf will be happy to know they have been relegated to the domain of paraphilia. Seriously now, Wilde and Gide and the Greeks and the Japanese, paraphiliacs all? If all articles that could be subsumed under homosexuality were so, then "lesbian" and "transgender" and "gay" would disappear from the list. But the fact is that they are represented, while pederasty, which is fundamental (no pun intended) to homosexual history and experience, has been somehow overlooked. But if it is one of the three main manifestations of homosexuality, and the one most frequently encountered in history, why has it been swept under the rug if not for political reasons?! Haiduc 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I suggest you take this conversation to the LGBT studies project instead of the little-read talk page of a template. This will ensure a larger community reads your views to be more fair to your arguments.

When you read something you disagree with, may I suggest you step back and take a moment to collect yourself enough to work with a collaborative attitude and stop using "what if" (slippery slope) or personal attacks on others and start assuming good faith among your fellow editors. WP:Etiquette

Furthermore, if you want to succeed within the Wikipedia community, it probably isn't the best tactic to come off as a crusader for one issue or cause. It seems you are endorsing original research once again in justifying inclusion of your pet project as a special exception in areas based upon your own deductions rather than the research of others. That type of behavior is not allowed. WP:NOT

Having one's specific proclivities called a "paraphilia" is not an insult. We all have paraphilias in one way or another - but the flavors are so many and varied, that there is not enough room to list them all in this specific template.

Please refer to:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought No. 1 (Wikipedia:No original research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox - "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact."
Wikipedia is not a battleground - (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." Calling someone a "on-the-barricades gay militant" is a personal attack. Please do not do this in the future, if other less tolerant administrators see this type of behavior, it may get you banned permanently from this project. That would be a shame since despite your combative nature, when you to work collaboratively your contributions to this project have largely been of good to high quality.

- Davodd 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

separatist feminism

Separatist feminism is so insignificant by number as to be almost non-notable anywhere on Wikipedia. Almost — I'll grant that it might make sense to link to it from the "feminism" template. But why is it on this template? Is there some huge contribution that has been made to LGBT rights by separatists? I'm not going to remove this immediately because I figure there ought to be a chance for discussion. So, any thoughts? — coelacan talk — 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody want to comment on this while we're all here today? That is, pro- or anti- removal of this link? — coelacan talk — 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with chucking it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's spoken up against removing it, so I'm doing that now. — coelacan talk — 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the flag thing

How about using the "lambda" sign? Haiduc 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an image of it, and besides, no-one knows what the hell it means. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I don't come across as being a WP:Dick over this, but from what I read at least in Wikipedia, the rainbow flag, in the context of LGBT, means gay pride, and to endorse gay pride on every page to do with LGBT in the encyclopedia is not really in line with NPOV. — Matt Crypto 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked (for inspiration) at the Nazism article, and that had the swastika as a template symbol, also a "pride" sign of sorts. Perhaps it is no big deal to leave things as they are, after all that is a representative symbol, and if there is no implied pov in a swastika, why should there be one here? Haiduc 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would distinguish between symbols that represent something and symbols that represent a POV of something. Sure, the distinction is not always clear cut, and symbols depend very much on their context and interpretation for their meaning. However, I think we have to be careful that we don't use symbols that are normally intended to convey a POV. I think this is such a case. The Swastika represented the Nazi party (later Nazi Germany) -- it doesn't have an intrinsic meaning that "the Nazi party is good". By contrast, the rainbow flag is not a neutral symbol of LGBT as such, but rather a symbol denoting gay pride: "The rainbow flag, sometimes called 'the freedom flag', has been used as a symbol of gay and lesbian pride since the 1970s. The different colors symbolize diversity in the gay community, and the flag is often used as a symbol of gay pride in gay rights marches" and "by the end of the 1970s the rainbow flag's connection with gay pride became generally known in the United States". Also after a quick Google, most references to the flag emphasise its use as a symbol of gay pride[1]. — Matt Crypto 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Matt - the symbol is almost always referred to as a "pride flag". However, in context, it doesn't always represent "pride" in being gay. Businesses use it to say they are "gay friendly". And in this context, it would be pretty silly to say an article was proud. Or even to say an article was gay. In context, it just symbolizes the gay community. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine a sillier topic to debate than this one. This is pushing NPOV to the extreme. I suppose one could make the claim that we at the LGBT project are making some sort of statement of pride, but as has already been pointed out, the rainbow flag has evolved to become a symbol of all things LGBT. As such, I feel it is appropriate. While the pink triangle could be substituted, I don't feel that it is appropriate, since it is a symbol of our previous victimization; therefore I would be uncomfortable with a change to that. And while I am WP:AGF, yes, it does come across as WP:Dick. Jeffpw 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SatyrTN is making a very good point; the flag is used in contexts other than "pride" such as business displays. There is no problem then, although if there had been a problem, there's still no other symbol that is more appropriate. And while it might not be necessary to have any symbol at all, nothing is wrong with this one so there's no reason to remove it. — coelacan talk — 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I'll acquiesce to the majority, but I respectfully disagree. You are likely more familiar with the connotations of the flag than I, but the example that businesses use the flag to indicate they are "gay friendly" isn't really a convincing one to show that it's a neutral symbol. I would argue that even in the context of Wikipedia it looks like we're supporting a gay pride POV; it seems particularly out of place in articles like, for example, LGBT rights opposition and Homosexuality laws of the world. (P.S. Jeffpw, let's keep things genial, eh?). — Matt Crypto 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nothing if not genial, Matt. However, you did express an implied concern that you might be coming across as WP:Dick; I simply felt it important to address your concern, and affirm it. I hope that clears up any concern about my motivations. Please WP:AGF Jeffpw 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. "I can't imagine a sillier topic to debate than this one" is not genial. Neither is feigning politeness while "affirming" that someone is a dick. But you know this. — Matt Crypto 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Are they still making security updates for IE 5.5? I just fixed up some bad markup on the current template. Look at that first, is it fixed? Then look at these and tell me if any of them are better: [2] [3] [4] There's some changes that might — might — go over better with your browser. — coelacan talk — 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current template is still ultra-large, while [5] is slightly large, and [6] [7] are both normal... AnonMoos 02:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I replaced CSS em's with %'s that should render identically in standards-compliant browsers. Does it look right "out in the field" now? That was bad CSS handling on your browser's part, by the way. You might want to get the rendering and security updates in IE6, and I really recommend that you also getfirefox. — coelacan talk — 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have to say, I don't why that is. I'm using Firefox, and I can't see any problems... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because IE stinks... =) SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine in IE 6 and 7, so I guess you could say IE stank (in this instance at least). AnonMoos, why not upgrade to IE7, or at least IE6? If you can't upgrade because you're computer is too outdated, try the Opera browser, which is very effient and runs on almost anything. If it is a simple matter of you don't have admin rights to update, try Firefox portable - it's a fully functional, modern browser that you don't need to actually install anything (it just sits in a folder somewhere). Koweja 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now anyway. If you're using IE 6 or 7 can you go look at the old version here and see if it looks different to you? I'd be interested in seeing how long these problems persisted in IE development. — coelacan talk — 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, I just offer tech support advice out of habit. Anyway, the old version looks perfectly fine in IE6 and IE7, so it much just have been a but in IE5.5 (imagine that...). We probably would have had more complaints by now if it caused a problem with those two. Koweja 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, there are no images in Lynx. Do you think that wp ought to be change for sake of your old/incompatible/whatever browser? Current css confirms to standards. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to these standards. — coelacan talk — 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be a big boy/girl and find them yourself. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't give policy or guideline links supporting your edits, then your edits should be reverted. — coelacan talk — 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can give policy or guidelines links supporting your edits? -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the point. If you can't provide a link saying that the edit is bad, your reverts are unjustified. _JD^talk 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I think that initial change was unjustified. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tasc, yes, I can: WP:CONSENSUS. — coelacan talk — 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't remain civil, you'll be blocked again. _JD^talk 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with the version that stood before you came in here, Tasc? You haven't explained what the issue is. — coelacan talk — 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request change to protected article

{{editprotected}} Requesting a revert to this version which was the last version adopted by consensus. User:Tasc has not even given a reason why it should be changed, the css edits were adopted to fix rendering problems in older browsers, and the css edits do not alter the appearence for newer browers. — coelacan talk — 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Give it a while. I'll unprotect the template if tasc doesn't link to a policy page. _JD^talk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? because someone is using black and white display doesn't mean that we shouldn't have colours! -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about colours. _JD^talk 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphor -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ::::You can give policy or guidelines links supporting your edits? --&nbsp;<strong>[[User:Tasc|tasc]]</strong>&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Tasc|words]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Tasc|deeds]]</sub> 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 :::::I don't think that's the point.  If you can't provide a link saying that the edit is bad, your reverts are unjustified.  <sub>[[User:J Di|JD]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:J Di|talk]]</sup> 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
+::::::Pardon me, but I think that initial change was unjustified. --&nbsp;<strong>[[User:Tasc|tasc]]</strong>&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Tasc|words]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Tasc|deeds]]</sub> 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 :::::Tasc, yes, I can: [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 :::If you can't remain civil, you'll be blocked again.  <sub>[[User:J Di|JD]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:J Di|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)