Template talk:Gay rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Can you improve this template?
I considered replacing the exixting template with something like Template 1 (see below), except that I would like the links to show up better. However, I have not found a way to change the color of links.Wuzzy 12:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Template 1 below right:
| Gay rights |
| Around the world · By country |
| Same-sex relationships |
| History · Groups · Activists |
| Opposition · Persecution · Violence |
| Violence |
[edit] Which template do you prefer?
A main concern of mine is that the template be legible and professional looking. Also, I notice that most templates are pastel, and the overall design of wikipedia is very subdued. So, another concern of mine is that the template not clash with other templates or be distracting. I find template 1 too loud, and template 2 also a bit loud. Are those concerns for you?
Please give your opinions below this table. Please do not alter and replace the various templates since they are up for vote. Instead, copy the template you wish to edit and paste your new version into an empty cell of the table below. Wuzzy 17:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Templates 8 and 14 to the right are the only contenders at this point. Neither should show horizontal divider lines between the rows of links (if they do, say so). Template 14 is the one on top, displayed as it would be on a regular page.
| Gay rights |
 |
| Around the world · By country |
| History · Groups · Activists |
| Same-sex relationships |
| Opposition · Persecution |
| Violence |
Template 8 is the lower one.It is displayed as it would on a regular page.
| Gay rights | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
Wuzzy 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- No problems with either using Firefox.-- Samuel Wantman 02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please give your opinions here:
I like 5, 7, and 8 best.8 or 9, I think. -Seth Mahoney 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)- Five is nice. Haiduc 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Template 9 added at 00:40, February 13, 2006.
- I added #9, so obviously I like that one. 7 and 8 are also good. Rexmorgan 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- 7, 8, or 9 would be fine by me. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 05:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Template 11 is the best of the templates that clearly avoid suggesting that Wikipedia endorses GLBT issues, per the use-mention distinction argument here, so I vote for template 11. (Note: I changed this vote from the one cast for 9 before 10 and 11 were proposed.) The Rod (☎ Smith) 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Template 8. Clearest, cleanest, not washed out, easy to read. Doesn't look like a flag. I don't see it as any more or less of a endorsement than #9. -- Samuel Wantman 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it look like a flag? Rexmorgan 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Template 10 added to address last comment. 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Templates 9 or 10. But think they can be improved on; awaiting template 11 :) ntennis 13:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Update: Also support template 11. ntennis 12:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Update: Support Template 14 ntennis 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Template 11 added at 13:54, February 14, 2006
I also agree with Rexmorgan about incorporating the colors into the template's design.. 10 or 11 are my choices (but without the purple border), 7, 8, and 9 also work. Rhobite 05:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Template 11, or something even smaller. This is applied to many articles, some of them stubs, and a large template overwhelms the text. A rainbow flag covering a large percentage of the screen is very distracting. It doesn't have to be big to make the visual point. -Will Beback 10:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 'Template 8 isn't bad either. -Will Beback 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment the size issue is one of the reasons I like 8. -Seth Mahoney 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Template 12 added on 13:13, February 19, 2006
- The new Template 14 looks great, although I support the general scheme of the entire 11-14 series. 7 and 8 are also acceptable; the others are too loud. Melchoir 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Issues
There is some discussion on Talk:Gay rights as to whether or not the use of the rainbow flag represents some sort of POV. -Seth Mahoney 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
(Clarification: there is discussion as to whether incorporating the rainbow flag into the design of the category template reflects a POV. Rexmorgan 01:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
- So, would # 7, 8, or 9 above work for you? -Seth Mahoney 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly the difference to which I was referring.Rexmorgan 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- This (Template 2) is still way too-big and garish. Some of us have to actually edit these articles and this template is an eyesore. How about just some hairline bars in a small flag at the top? -Will Beback 10:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- BAsed on the resposes so far, I propose to replace the existing template with template 11 with a silver border on Feb 17 unless there is a groundswell of opposition. Wuzzy 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how 11 has reached a consensus. Personally, I still like 8 the best, and I thought there were objections about having the "gay flag" as part of the template. Please wait till there is some more discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll wait until Feb 19, which is a week from the start of discussion. There is consensus on dropping template 2, and only two persons have commented since Template 11 was added on Feb 17, and both found it acceptable. No one opposes the gay pride flag inserted as content in the template. The only opposition was to the rainbow colours "used" as rows of the template, or the entire template looking like a flag.Wuzzy 09:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- If there is consensus on dropping template 2, we might as well drop 3 and 4 as well, since the design is more or less the same for those three. -Seth Mahoney 23:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll wait until Feb 19, which is a week from the start of discussion. There is consensus on dropping template 2, and only two persons have commented since Template 11 was added on Feb 17, and both found it acceptable. No one opposes the gay pride flag inserted as content in the template. The only opposition was to the rainbow colours "used" as rows of the template, or the entire template looking like a flag.Wuzzy 09:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how 11 has reached a consensus. Personally, I still like 8 the best, and I thought there were objections about having the "gay flag" as part of the template. Please wait till there is some more discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- BAsed on the resposes so far, I propose to replace the existing template with template 11 with a silver border on Feb 17 unless there is a groundswell of opposition. Wuzzy 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
I'm not sure I understand why some folks distinguish between vertical and horizontal stripes - does one orientation have a political meaning while the other doesn't? -Will Beback 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the issue is not a question of orientation. It is mainly a question of whether the rainbow is inserted as content of the template as in 9 to 11, which would be okay since it is a symbol for what the articles are about, or whether it is used as part of the design of the template as in 1 to 8. In the latter case, TheRod, Rhobite (who inconsistently said that he/she is unopposed to 7 and 8), RexMorgan (who also nevertheless said that he is unopposed to 7 and 8) and Ntennis believe that it would imply that Wiki supports gay rights. However, Seth Mahoney and Will Beback favour a smaller design; a stripe is smaller than the flag. Wuzzy 13:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I propose to implement Template 13 on February 23. I think it is as close to consensus as we are going to get. It is smaller than 11, but bigger than 12. I find that "Gay rights" looks disproportionately big in 12, but I have not been able to find a way to make "Gay rights" somewhat smaller. It is either this size, or the same size as the links, which is too small for a title. So, the only solution seemds to be to make the template a bit bigger. Wuzzy 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am also unopposed to template 8. Templates 11, 12 and 13 are identical in size on my browser (safari). Template 11 has strong divider lines and 12 and 13 have soft divider lines - they appear indistinguishable. All divider lines remain when I copy the wikicode into my sandbox. ntennis 11:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well then, we may have a consensus on template 8, and a new objection to templates 11-13. I use Internet explorer 6 and there are no dividers in templates 9 to 13 provided they are shown directly on a page instead of inserted in this template comparison table. I doubt that I know how to avoid the problem in Safari. Do you not have a problem with divider lines in template 8 in Safari? Would someone with Firefox please test 8 and 13 ASAP in a sandbox to see if there are problems. Wuzzy 11:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't they tested on this page? They both look ok here (with Firefox). (I still prefer #8) -- Samuel Wantman 11:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I also tried #8 and 13 on my userpage. They looked the same as they do here. The dividers on #13 did not go away as promised. -- Samuel Wantman 11:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I just tested them on my firefox and got the same results I described for safari. I don't mind the divider lines on template 8. See User:Ntennis/Sandbox. ntennis 12:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- By the way, which one do you like Wuzzy? Don't make a decision based purely on numbers, as the people who voted for earlier versions did so before the recent additions, making a vote count tricky. My main reason for preferring 9 or later is that they seem to best address the original concern. I am actually unopposed to them all! :) ntennis 12:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I prefer 8, then 13, as they appear in IE, without visible divider lines. However, if either shows horizontal divider lines between the rows of links in Firefox, then I think they are unacceptable (I can live with vertical divider lines between the colors of 8). I will try to fix them or seek help at the help desk so that horizontal divider lines do not show up in in IE and Firefox at least. Wuzzy 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Cool. I wouldn't dismiss Safari either. It is the most commonly used browser on mac operating systems. ntennis 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- In Firefox 13 has the horizontal dividers. 8 has no such problems. I don't see the vertical divider lines. I'm wondering if this a color artifact on CRT monitors. I have an LCD monitor and it looks just fine. -- Samuel Wantman 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Wuzzy: Templates14 and 8 have no divider lines for me (both inside and outside of the table). BTW I am also using an LCD monitor so the lines are not an artifact of CRT screens. ntennis 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is consensus on 14, and I propose to implement template 14 tomorrow. The horizontal dividers in Firefox and Safary appear to have been eliminated in 14. I assume that those who favor 11 would also agree to 14 because they are similar. Those who think 11 is too big might find 14 okay since it is smaller. TheRod objects to 8 because the rainbow is part of the design, not just the content. I'm not aware of anyone who objects to 14. Wuzzy 13:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still OK with template 14, and my objection to template 8 is weak. It blurs the use-mention distinction, but only slightly so. I everyone else likes it, I'd withdraw my objection. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I've changed it from "LGTB rights" to "Legal issues of LGBT". --Haham hanuka 16:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm not sure that there really is an NPOV problem here. Second, "Legal issues of LGBT" does not sound to me like correct English. -Smahoney 19:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe the English is correct but it's still POV --Haham hanuka 19:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Saying "X is the case" is not the same as proving that X is the case. What, exactly, do you think is POV, and why? -Smahoney 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What about "Pedophiles rights"? still NPOV? --Haham hanuka 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That doesn't answer the question. What, exactly, do you think is POV, and why? -Smahoney 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Some people think that gays should not have rights. --Haham hanuka 17:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Some people think that black people should not have rights. Does that mean we should change civil rights movement to black people's legal issues? Does the fact that some people think that Jews should not have rights mean that we should change holocaust to Jews' legal issues with Nazi Germany? So far I've seen no argument, just your POV. -Smahoney 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We don't have an article nor template named "Jews rights" or "Blacks rights". --Haham hanuka 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Um, we do have Zionism and civil rights movement, respectively, which are pretty close. We also have human rights, which is what all rights movements appeal to. We also have animal rights, despite the fact that some people think animals don't have rights. Regardless, you're still not presenting any arguments, just your POV. -Smahoney 17:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Changing to LGBT movements as per the wikilink - the term "rights" is plainly not neutral. Movement is still accurate and fairly positive. If it's good enough for the wikilink, it's good enough for the template.Timothy Usher 06:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the template heading to LGBT rights. The articles linked in the template do not primarily refer to LGBT social movements, but to the legal and social status of homosexuality. ntennis 03:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Groups
Anybody else think that "Groups" should point to List of gay-rights organizations instead of Category:LGBT rights organizations? I have no real argument for this except the aesthetic. The article is easier on the eye than the category. And it's sorted by region rather than alphabetically, so I guess that's more useful. Any thoughts? — coelacan talk — 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
