Template talk:LGBTQ/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New Image?

What do people think of the new image? I was surprised to see it, since I hadn't seen any discussion of it. I like it, but I think... Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth taking the discussion to WT:LGBT so more people see it. I've asked Dev if she knows of any discussion about the change. I think I like it too- but its kinda sudden... WjBscribe 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the image! It also makes my dorsal fin shiver with a foreboding of controversy. I think that since this appears on so many pages, and incorporates the Wikipedia logo, we ought to ask for wide input at WP:CN. — coelacan — 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:CN would be going a bit far. The use of the Wikipedia logo on Wikipedia isn't that controversial. But some discussion wouldn't be a bad idea... WjBscribe 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the tone of WP:CN has changed a little bit since the first archive. It's pretty serious over there. What about WP:VPM? RFC is just so slooow. — coelacan — 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a dorsal fin?!?

Should we start with WT:LGBT and work our way up to whatever other forum sounds good? The alphabet soup drives me crazy. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do! Don't tell me you've never looked at my userpage pic! Okay, I suggest we use this as the central point for discussion, since anyone who sees the image and feels like discussing it will naturally come here first (we all did). WT:LGBT is an obvious place, I'll go ask them to come over here and give feedback. I've convinced myself that WP:VPM is as good a place as any to get feedback from the non-LGBT Wikipedia community, so I'll go over there and leave a link back here too. — coelacan — 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted (not GFDL) and this image needs permission from the Wikimedia Foundation (which the license information does not currently claim). I don't know whether the Foundation is likely to approve it or not, but it shouldn't be used at all until somebody gets an answer. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure? It doesn't seem like the other derivative images in Commons:Category:CopyrightByWikimedia have any notes about granted permission on them. — coelacan — 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure, see m:Logo. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I love the new image. Hope we can use it. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 04:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Very nice image. Haiduc 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Great image. Luv it! --Allyn 06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a nice image - makes me want to elevate the professionalism of the whole box to something like this; however, licensing definitely needs to be addressed first. ZueJay (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This image needs to come down immediately. The template is only used in the main namespace, and you remember when Matt Crypto argued that the rainbow flag was POV? Well, having a Wikipedia logo with LGBT stamped on it is VERY POV. And also the copyright issues. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the globe get permission from the foundation.Geni 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's ask Jimbo Wales for permission to use that globe because Jimbo is the board member of the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jet123 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the incorrect laws on map and other areas regarding Australia

i was looking at this map and other places on this article and found many inaccuracies regarding Australia.

1.Marriage and civil unions in Australia are still Taboo and i doubt very highly if it will ever be Law, due to the Marriages clause that state "marriage is a union of man and woman above all others ."

the only working model remotely close to a civil union is the registration scheme in Tasmania, where you register as a gay or non intimate couple, though this is not sticly just for homosexuals. also to note that Melbourne city has proposed this idea as well

Note: Tasmania, Victoria (from December 2007), Sydney city (The only part in NSW), Melbourne city also has a register relationships scheme.

2. the age of consent across the board in NSW and the ACT as well as some other states is 16 , regardless of anal sex or not,

Note: From 2006 - The Age of consent equal for ALL jurisdictions (state nor territory) exect queensland being 16 for V/O and 18 for A.

i really feel this "map" should be changed . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antstorm (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Christopher Street (importance)

Should Christopher Street (Manhattan) be added to this template? The significance of it is with respect to the Stonewall Inn and Stonewall Riots. --AEMoreira042281 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AIDS timeline?

How this belongs here in this template, at least i dont understand. Template needs cleanup(rearrange). gl. Lara_bran 06:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

use on biographical articles

hey - someone just placed the LGBT template on the Annie Leibovitz article. AL was definitely involved in a relationship with Susan Sontag, and I think it's therefore fine for her to be in the LGBT categories. But series boxes are a bit much for biographical entries. Is there a policy for this already? Thoughts? --lquilter 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you've already removed it from the article, our thoughts are moot. At any rate, I agree that it shouldn't be on there. {{LGBT}} may belong on there though. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I edited the template

This box is present on a page about conversion therapy, which is about how homosexuality has been treated as an illness. To have the word 'queer' - which suggests insanity - at the top of such a page is offensive in the extreme (it is offensive in any case, of course, but especially offensive for the conversion therapy page). Skoojal (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have some problem with the use of the word queer. I am sorry but it is not derogatory in this context and is widely used in academic literature on the subject. The course of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#Category:Queer studies shows that your objections to the use of the term are not shared by other editors. WjBscribe 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you have no control over how most people regard the word queer. It is offensive to most gay people and considered an insult. The fact that a tiny, unrepresentative academic sect likes this word does not change that fact. Stop for a minute and think about what using the word queer in an article about homosexuality being treated as an illness suggests! Don't you have any sense of decency? Skoojal (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that deleting material merely because of a personal bias is considered vandalism. Davodd (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because it violated wikipedia's policies, which it seems wikipedia is perfectly able and willing to ignore. Your accusation of personal bias is juvenile. Skoojal (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT discrimination

I've just added a new rubric for the template: Anti-LGBT discrimination. The title of the rubric is linked to Category:Homophobia given that this is the most encompasing category, despite the restrictive "Homophobia" name. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of rainbow colors and change of category

Although the outside border is neater, it is harder to read the subcategories now that their colors have been removed.

Also, "homophobia" and the like are forms of discrimination, not simply views; nor are they necessarily "opposing", either. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was doing some cleanup edits to the sexual orientation template & noticed the scheme it uses for section headers... (black text on grey background).. maybe something like that would work, (though having each section use different colors like before would look a little busy/tacky) -- User0529 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and try that out, if you don't like it feel free to tweak or revert it. -- User0529 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The shading improves readability a lot now. Good idea. --CJ Withers (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, though i can't claim it as an original idea. <ctrl-c ctrl-v for life! j/k :-)> --User0529 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

use of flag

I know this hasn't been brought up in a few months, but the flag really is out of place in NPOV articles unless they specifically address the LGBT rights movement (which the flag is a historical part of). The term LGBT, gay pride, and the gay pride flag are 20th Century inventions and have political and POV connotations with the modern LGBT movement, and have no NPOV place being branded on all articles relating to homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. Whatever your political or personal feelings are on LGBT issues: Homosexual affection, desires, sexual activity, have been going on since caveman days if not before, whereas "LGBT" is associated with a modern political movement for LGBT rights. I am not saying I am against LGBT rights, but POV political symbols should only be branded on articles specifically about said political movements, IMHO. Just putting this out there for discussion and kicking around, THx. --Caveman80 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't every symbol POV once you know what it's suppose to represent or told what it means? Banjeboi 12:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal version

Is there a horizontal version of this info box? If not, could someone create one? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dragging out and butchering

As of this date and time the template is as close to ideal as possible despite previous dragging out and butchering. If there are any essential concepts that must stand on their own, please include them while keeping in mind format issues. --CJ Withers (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

This is kinda minor, but I'd like to change the picture to this, it is wayyyyyy better: [1] Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I made a bold edit and changed the picture, it looks much better now, hope everyone will agree! Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

looks good! Outsider80 (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Since the sidebar was replaced in the Lesbian article, is there a way to connect it to the image at the top of the article, so that it appears as a seamless infobox with 2 images? Like the infobox for Everglades National Park? Apparently I can rewrite the article but I can't figure out the codey code code to fix that. I think it would be an interesting and unifying visual to do that for the core articles in LGBT. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture is non-NPOV. It is a glorifying picture and not neutral. It flies the flag in a romanticised, idealised way, the flag show be presented neutrally, like the flags, shields, etc. for countries. If it is just presented as is, then it is neutral, you see it for what it is, not in any idealised fashion. - User:Dalta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.192.167 (talk) (signing this now as my own post Dalta (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Considering the is the L G B T template, the image is hardly POV. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it being the LGBT template makes it less POV. - Dalta (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does Intolerance link to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality

This is nonsensical. To the question "Should homosexuality be accepted by society?" 86% of Swedes say yes. Among people who are 18-39 years old, this support reaches to 91% [2]. Thats hardly intolerance. This isnt NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)