Talk:International Transgender Day of Visibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Holidays (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Removed Proposed Deletion[edit]

I removed the deletion because the reason given is that the article is "not notable" but it is a notable holiday. It has been recognized and celebrated by many LGBT organizations including the Human Rights Campaign. It has been celebrated for 3 years and has definitely been established as an official holiday within the LGBT community, even though it is a new holiday. Pianosandwich (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)pianosandwich

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Transgender Day of Visibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent layout edits[edit]

@Castncoot: I respect that your recent edits were made in good faith, but I think they make the layout of this page look much worse. As with the Transgender Day of Remembrance where you've made similar edits, I do not want to appear self-serving by restoring a photo I took to a more prominent position on the page, but I would like to discuss with other editors whether your changes have improved the page. I don't believe having a large generic transgender symbol is preferable to having a photo taken at an observance of the event. Also pinging Mathglot who reverted your changes earlier. Funcrunch (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note, per your edit summary about the trans sidebar, that as I mentioned on Talk:Transgender Day of Remembrance, the trans sidebar is this template, which has the transgender flag, not the symbol you've inserted. Funcrunch (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

See also[edit]

I reverted the addition of the link "International Transgender Day of Remembrance" from the See also section. An objection to this removal was raised at Talk:International Transgender Day of Remembrance in off-topic asides here and here. The place to discuss what is appropriate in the See also section on this article, is this talk page.

User:Castncoot, My understanding is that you believe that consistency demands a reciprocity of links in the "See also" sections of different articles that all contain the same transgender sidebar; so that if article A has link B in its See also, then article B should have link to A in its "See also" section, and vice versa. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your view.)

However, this argument is incorrect. Rather, International Transgender Day of Visibility should not contain a link to International Transgender Day of Remembrance in the "See also" section, because of what guideline WP:NOTSEEALSO says about links already contained in the article. Hope this helps clarify. Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you are saying. All that WP:NOTSEEALSO states is that redlinked topics and dab pages should not be listed as entries. I see nothing about not including reciprocity, because precluding reciprocity would defeat the very purpose of WP:MOS:SEEALSO. Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit disingenuous to stop reading WP:NOTSEEALSO just before the sentence that is germane here, and obviously it's not the one about dab links. Do you really want me to copy/paste a sentence out of a very short guideline page here?
In addition, if you wish to make a case for "reciprocity", you need to quote a guideline that *does* mention it, not one that *does not*. I can quote a hundred guidelines that do not mention it, but I'm afraid that gives you no support for your argument. The burden of proof is on you to find one that does. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Transgender Day of Visibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)