Template talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Keep Cat?

Shouldn't we keep the Category? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because I've just rendered it redundant with my LGBT articles by quality category. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:START-Class?

It seems that articles which transclude this template are listed as also transcluding a non-existent {{START-Class}} template. Does anyone know why? Dancter 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit for disclaimer

{{editprotected}} The following disclaimer needs to be added to this template to alleviate any issues such as the current issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Eleanor Roosevelt dealing with Eleanor Roosevelt:

<small>'''Display of this ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|WikiProject LGBT studies]]'' project tag does not necessarily reflect the article subject's sexual orientation but only that the article subject falls within the scope of the project.'''</small>

- ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Should I add it above, or below the assessment grade? I just want to be sure. Nihiltres^{t.l} 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would add it below where it says "This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale." - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tweak to proposal:

<small>'''Display of this ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|WikiProject LGBT studies]]'' project tag does not necessarily reflect the article subject's sexual orientation but only that the article subject falls within the scope of the project.'''</small> Aleta ^Sing 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclined to go with Aleta's version, but support the overall drift here regardless. I've got a mockup at User:Luna Santin/sandbox/X1 (permalink), and objection to that? Feel free to fiddle, if so. Will implement that if there's no objection in some reasonable period. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I struck out my version. No problems here with Aleta's. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 11:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done This change represents (IMO) a violation of WP:DISCLAIMER. I have posted on the policy talk page to request more comments. Happy‑melon 19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't you just using the |explanation= parameter in these instances? A short sentence could explain the specific issues when actually needed without changing the template on every page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because apparently no one was aware of the |explanation= parameter. I've since restored the project banner with that parameter. And to Happy-melon, it's not a disclaimer, it's a clarification. I should have chosen a better name for this section. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We can edit the template directly because making one edit is much easier than making a few hundred or thousand, and the more painstaking method is sure to miss numerous pages. I'm disappointed by Happy-melon's action, which seems to (mistakenly, IMO) imply that WP:NDA justifies a systemic violation of WP:BLP. Further, the text of WP:NDA says quite specifically, "For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicates the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages." Please point out which of our blanket disclaimers explains the LGBT wikiproject tag. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What you call it is irrelevant, the addition is (to my mind) no different from adding a disclaimer to {{WikiProject Aids}} to "explain" that its presence on an biography does not necessariliy imply that the subject has AIDS. Both 'explanations' are as ridiculous as each other: if anyone is idiotic enough to assume that an article's subject is gay just because they are "within the scope of" WP:LGBT, they deserve to remain ignorant (:D). There is no need to employ disclaimers or explanations of any sort as a purely preventive measure, and the articles themselves should provide enough content and context to clear up any ambiguity. That's my perspective, anyway; I've asked for further input from WT:DISCLAIMER (perhaps this would be relevant to WP:BLP/N as it primarily concerns perceived defamation of living people?) Happy‑melon 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP again? Please accept my appologies, as I know that you are only responsible for one of the (literally) dozens of times that I've seen BLP invoked recently to justify the overthrow or circumvention of just about any other policy or guideline. I now have very little patience with the thing, which will inevitably spill into this discussion, so as I say, appologies in advance. You are right in saying that, in purely literal terms, the "explanation" you propose to add does not duplicate anything in any of the five disclaimers. In the same way, however, not including it is not a "violation of WP:BLP" by any literal reading of the policy. Go on, give me a quote :D. That's why Wikipedia's policies are not binding legalistic rules but flexible and intuitive guidelines, which must be coupled with good common sense. Common sense says to me that you are trying to fix a perceived problem which simply does not exist when a rational person looks at a Wikipedia article and sees that it is "within the scope of" this project. You are trying to preempt a possible interpretation of the circumstances, which is laudable, but pointless, because there are an infinite number of ways in which the appearance of an article's talk page could be interpreted if someone were foolish enough to do so. WP:NOT#CENSORED for the benefit of homophobes any more than for any other group; if they choose to take any opportunity to assume someone is gay, that's their problem, not ours. Our articles should speak for themselves, that's largely what your project is for; if the article does not contain enough information to disabuse a confused viewer of the thought that its subject is gay because of the presence of {{LGBTProject}}, then there is a serious problem, but it's with the article, not the template. Happy‑melon 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we're talking. ;) Wikipedia:BLP#Categories is arguably quite relevant, here, as some very similar concerns exist between category tags (which cannot be clarified) and wikiproject tags (which generally are not clarified). The linked section does make specific mention of religion/sexuality categories, and suggests they should only be used if (a) the subject publicly identifies with said group and (b) the subject's beliefs or orientation are relevant to their public activities. That's not a perfect fit with this discussion, granted, but there is considerable precedent in policy and practice to suggest we should be careful in this area. While we might be able to use a more refined category, there's only really one project template. While I do agree in part with your sentiment on (perhaps willfully) confused readers, this could also be a problem for article subjects, for whom the consequences of iffy bios are more serious. One possible compromise, an in-line mention ("...coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. It does not necessarily reflect on the subject's orientation." [italics for talk page only][aside: shouldn't LGBT-related be hyphenated?]) might be more subtle. I do admit you have a very strong point, as far as the article's responsibility to provide context (if an article can really be "responsible," but hopefully you get the idea...); would it be acceptable to forcibly remove the wikiproject template from the talk page of an article, if its presence can't be well justified and/or the article cannot appropriately clarify its relevance/context (hopefully after some reasonable attempt has been made)? Just brainstorming alternative solutions. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon, I agree whole-heartedly that this shouldn't even be being discussed.. a disclaimer/clarification. Unfortunately, an admin and other editors have seen fit to remove the LGBT Project banner from Eleanor Roosevelt. As I said above, you can read about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Eleanor Roosevelt. Since the admin, and other editors, insist on the banner being removed because of no proof that Roosevelt was lesbian/bisexual, I felt the disclaimer/clarification the only other solution to point out that she wasn't included in the scope of the project because of her sexual orientation itself but because she is a gay icon. Again, I think it is absurd that anyone would want the banner removed.. but when I'm having to duke it out with an admin over the banner, I'm left with no other options than trying to compromise via a disclaimer/clarification statement made via the banner itself. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} I would like to request the following changes to the template:

1. To keep up with changes over at WP:ASSESS, the template needs FL-Class and C-Class adding to it.
2. The template documentation should be moved to the Template:LGBTProject/doc subpage, which I have already prepared.

I have made the necessary updates in my user sandbox, it just requires someone to paste the contents of User:PC78/Sandbox4 over the current version of this template. Thanks in advance! PC78 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor fix

{{editprotected}}
Missed it before, but -class should be capitalized as -Class in this line:

{{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|'''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment#Quality scale|Quality:]]''' {{{class}}}-Class|This article has been '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment|rated]]''' as '''{{{class}}}-class''' on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment#Quality scale|quality scale]].}}

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Done – {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this admin-only?

???

Dybryd (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[1]

PC78 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a target for vandalism. Banjeboi 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Add some text for NPOV

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Add_text_to_project_tag.3F, Inclusion of the LGBT wikiproject tag does not imply LGBT support or objection to the subject of an article (per WP:NPOV). should be added to the template. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. This sounds rather like the proposal made above, and has the same problems, i.e. it's basically a disclaimer, and a potential violation of WP:DISCLAIM. As noted above, if you need to provide some sort of justification for tagging an article for this project, then the template already has an "explanation" parameter. I would prefer to have a wider concensus before such a change is made. PC78 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright; feel free to join in on the discussion over there :) Gary King (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a disclaimer. It simply states a fact. The tag is commonly mispercieved as something it is not - IE, LGBT endorsement of an articles subject. The tag is no such endorsement, as the tag is neutral... It merely indicates that an article's subject comes under the remit of LGBT studies, and as such, neither support or objection is implied. That is a mere statement of fact. If it were advocating that "this particular tage doesn't mean that we support" and on a different article saying "this particular tag doesn't mean we object" then it would be a disclaimer. Stating that the tage niether supports or objects generally without reference to any specific source of controversy disclaims nothing. All it does is make a factual statement about the nature of the tag itself which corrects a common misinterpretation... as mentioned above, there is discussion on the wikiproject talk page. Crimsone (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The text is not a disclaimer in any of the senses specified at WP:DISCLAIM -- which are disclaimers about the accuracy and reliability of WP content either in a general or specific sense (medical, legal) or else warnings about content (explicit material or spoilers).

It is a simple reminder of a central WP policy -- that the LGBT project adheres to NPOV in its editing. It ought to go without saying. It doesn't go without saying, it comes up again and again.

Dybryd (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already posted further comment over at the project talk page; lets not carry on the discussion in two different places. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request, 15 November 2008

{{editprotected}} Please replace this template with the contents of User:PC78/lgbt. The DEFAULTSORT in this template seems to be causing a conflict with the "listas" parameter in {{WPBiography}} (see Talk:Alan Turing for an example of this). I have removed this feature from the template code, but added PAGENAME to the various categories to ensure that they are still sorted alphabetically. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your request sounds reasonable, PC78. I'm going to leave it for someone else to do though, so that someone more familiar with template code can check it out first. Maybe you should post a note on Satyr's talkpage? Aleta ^Sing 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't [[:Category:Somecat|{{PAGENAME}}]] redundant? And wouldn't that force a different sort order than the {{DEFAULTSORT}} if one were present? I'd prefer just removing the DEFAULTSORT and leaving the others alone, but let me know if there's a reason for the PAGENAMEs that I'm missing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is only redundant for pages in the article space, but for the purposes of this template it is necessary to prevent articles from all being categorized under T (i.e. Talk:Somearticle). At present the DEFAULTSORT is set to PAGENAME anyway, so I'm not sure why you think this change would force a different sort order. PC78 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah - right - that explains the DEFAULTSORT. However, with biographies the WPBIO template would impose a "LISTAS" defaultsort, right? So then this template would override that. However, I don't know any coding way to overcome that conflict, and the benefit of *not* having everything listed under "T" is probably stronger than worrying about the conflict. I'll make the change you suggest. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request, 3 December 2009

Hi, I just noticed that the Spanish interwiki links with the wrong template (an early test version that was soon discarded). The right link would be this one. Could someone please change it? Thanks Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You can do this yourself at the bottom of the documentation page Template:LGBTProject/doc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for the pointer. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No importance of article capability?

This template doesn't allow users to categorize what importance the article is in? Isn't that typically used for templates like these, or is there something I'm missing?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It does allow quality assessment, by using the class parameter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say importance ranking.(edited to reflect)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right it doesn't do importance ratings. This option could be added if there was agreement by the WikiProject. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Kk, I was just wondering if it was supposed to or not. Guess not. Thanks.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To avoid misleading people about this template's functionality, I've removed the part of the documentation which suggested that this template had an 'importance=' parameter; obviously, the documentation should be restored iff the functionality is restored. -sche (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: I added it to the documentation with this edit at 22:59, 30 August 2015, but it was a valid parameter at the time - between 19:37, 30 August 2015 and 23:20, 1 September 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that your edit was misleading, merely that the failure of whoever removed the functionality to also remove the documentation left things in a state which had, just before my edit, resulted in someone adding an effectless importance= parameter to Talk:Transgender. -sche (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request, 16 June 2020

I'd like to see the Template:WikiProject LGBT studies have a link to its unassessed articles. That could make it easier to assess unassessed articles. This link would go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unassessed_LGBT_articles and would look something like this:

You would have to use the {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} template b/c using brackets does not work.

Makes sure to view the source code of my comment -- that's the only way you'll be able to copy my edit into the template.

The final product would look like this:

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@P,TO 19104:  Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Please do not paste code examples into the talk page, that's why we have the sandbox. Similarly, demonstrations belong at the testcases page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ok. I put the code into the sandbox. You can also view the code in the test cases page where it would be the second and third ones down. Is my edit accepted? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, so your sandbox changes show your proposed change much more clearly than posting blobs of code into a talk page. Question on that: why are you using {{URL}}? In fact, why use a full URL at all?

But this is not how we make test cases. All you should need to do is provide two example transclusions using identical parameters: one transclusion of the live template, and one of the sandbox - see for example the two lines immediately above your new lines. This should be explained at WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ok -- I have now put the live template and the proposed changed template in the sandbox.

Answer to your question on why I am using the {{URL}} template: The WikiProject uses a category to categorize all unassessed articles; however, unfortunately using {{[Category:Unassessed LGBT articles]}} ( I used single brackets for a reason since double brackets would yield {{}} ) does not show without viewing the source. The reason for this is because this source code is supposed to be used at the top of article to categorize them NOT to link the articles to categories in a template.

Let me show you in this example:

Example
Category:Unassessed LGBTQ+ studies articles

As you can see, there is nothing in the box!

So, the only solution is to use {{URL}} or to use [2]

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 14:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, no, no. With edits like these, you're just making it even more difficult to work out exactly what you want done. In the box above, beginning "It is requested that an edit be made ...", do you see a link titled sandbox diff? Click it. That compares the live template with the sandbox, and so should tell me what specific change is desired - but it doesn't. You seem to have added some headings and made extra copies of the template in there, which not only makes it difficult to work out what the specific change is, it also makes it impossible to test on the testcases page.

Start off by making the sandbox an exact copy of the live template, such that the sandbox diff link shows the text "(No difference)" - this is what I did here. Then edit the sandbox, making only those changes that you would have made to the live template if it was not protected.

If you want to link a category, you don't need to jump through hoops - there are two easy ways; and one is very easy indeed. H:WIKILINK explains in the last paragraph of that section that you merely need to insert a colon at the start:

• [[:Category:Unassessed LGBT articles]] → Category:Unassessed LGBT articles

Then there is the template {{cl}}:

• {{cl|Unassessed LGBT articles}} → Category:Unassessed LGBT articles

So your "only solution" is demonstrably untrue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Okay- see my proposed revisions [3] or in the sandbox. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work, my browser throws a "Server not found" error. Why do you want to complicate matters by using templates like {{URL}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Try it now. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

These are your proposed changes. Please review WP:TESTCASES again - it should be possible for an editor with the appropriate user right to copy the whole of the sandbox to the live template, replacing everything that is presently there; but I tell you straight - if they do that, there will be trouble because of broken transclusions.

• Why do you want a {{Sandbox notice}} to be added? That would be totally unacceptable on the live template.
• Why do you want the {{documentation}} removed? When a template has documentation, we always provide it.
• Why do you want the </noinclude> tag to be removed? This will leave an unclosed <noinclude> tag whcich is bad practice.

Changes like these will simply not be put live. I am on the point of rejecting your request outright - and I haven't even got as far as looking for verification that WikiProject LGBT studies actually desires any of your changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No response for three years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition of trans parameter

Can we add a trans= parameter to support article tagging/assessment of this Transgender work group. Should also do this for the LGBT in Canada and the LGBT in the U.S. work groups if that hasn't been done already. Thanks Soulbust (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Soulbust: There's presently code for only one work group, |person=yes for the LGBT Person task force; so, please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Hi thank you for directing me in the right place. I made the edits to template's sandbox and was wondering if it checks out or looks alright? Soulbust (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine, but I really should see consensus from the WikiProject; I see that WT:WikiProject LGBT studies#Transgender work group exists, but with no responses yet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Attention parameter

Hi there! Although the template does not support the |attention= parameter, Category:LGBT studies articles needing attention exists. Could someone either add |attention= to the template so we can move the categories from the articles to the talk pages, or delete the category? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)