Template talk:LGBTProject
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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] 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)
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)
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 {{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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
