Template talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Archives
2006-present

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, niether 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

{{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

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)