Template talk:LGBT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of 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, visit the project page.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Refigure as footer

This very large template takes up too much real estate at the top of articles, sometimes pushing down other smaller (and more on-topic) series boxes such as Template:Gay rights. I would like to refigure it to sit on the bottom of articles, similar to the Template:Astronomy subfields or Template:Region. Any objections? ntennis 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A better option may be to create multiple versions - similar to waht was done with Template:Chicano, Template:Chicano2 and Template:Chicano/Mexican-American, to allow options for use depending on the type of article. I suggest if you make more, that you provide links and examples at Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies (where this template seems to work quite well). - Davodd 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I made a draft at Template:LGBT-footer. Looking at the what links here list, I think the footer is more appropriate in nearly all instances, though I agree that the side box works nicely on the LGBT studies WikiProject page. I only updated polari and gay liberation for now.

A closer look at the links has made me wonder how these particular articles were decided on, and I made some changes to the list in adapting it. I would be happy to participate in a discussion aimed at finding the most appropriate links for such a template. ntennis 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bold?

Is there a way to make all (most?) of the text normal weight? I don't know, it's purely for looks, I find that bolding all text is annoying. Jesse 01:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed this. Jesse 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systemically incomplete

The last time I added "pederasty" to this template it succumbed to the knife of an on-the-barricades gay militant. However, unless it is properly represented here this template will be a political instrument rather than an academic guide. Do we want to be comprehensive or do we want to be politically correct? Haiduc 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Why should we start including specific paraphilia traits associated with certain LGBT folks in this template since it already is too large and needs a good trimming. It seems pederasty already falls under the aegis of homosexuality - which is listed. Davodd 03:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. - Maybe this converstion would be better served at the project talk page (link at top of this article) - Davodd 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that the sixteen y/o London youth and his twenty four y/o boyf will be happy to know they have been relegated to the domain of paraphilia. Seriously now, Wilde and Gide and the Greeks and the Japanese, paraphiliacs all? If all articles that could be subsumed under homosexuality were so, then "lesbian" and "transgender" and "gay" would disappear from the list. But the fact is that they are represented, while pederasty, which is fundamental (no pun intended) to homosexual history and experience, has been somehow overlooked. But if it is one of the three main manifestations of homosexuality, and the one most frequently encountered in history, why has it been swept under the rug if not for political reasons?! Haiduc 04:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  Again, I suggest you take this conversation to the LGBT studies project instead of the little-read talk page of a template. This will ensure a larger community reads your views to be more fair to your arguments.
  When you read something you disagree with, may I suggest you step back and take a moment to collect yourself enough to work with a collaborative attitude and stop using "what if" (slippery slope) or personal attacks on others and start assuming good faith among your fellow editors. WP:Etiquette
  Furthermore, if you want to succeed within the Wikipedia community, it probably isn't the best tactic to come off as a crusader for one issue or cause. It seems you are endorsing original research once again in justifying inclusion of your pet project as a special exception in areas based upon your own deductions rather than the research of others. That type of behavior is not allowed. WP:NOT
  Having one's specific proclivities called a "paraphilia" is not an insult. We all have paraphilias in one way or another - but the flavors are so many and varied, that there is not enough room to list them all in this specific template.
Please refer to:
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought No. 1 (Wikipedia:No original research: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox - "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact."
  • Wikipedia is not a battleground - (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." Calling someone a "on-the-barricades gay militant" is a personal attack. Please do not do this in the future, if other less tolerant administrators see this type of behavior, it may get you banned permanently from this project. That would be a shame since despite your combative nature, when you to work collaboratively your contributions to this project have largely been of good to high quality.
- Davodd 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] separatist feminism

Separatist feminism is so insignificant by number as to be almost non-notable anywhere on Wikipedia. Almost — I'll grant that it might make sense to link to it from the "feminism" template. But why is it on this template? Is there some huge contribution that has been made to LGBT rights by separatists? I'm not going to remove this immediately because I figure there ought to be a chance for discussion. So, any thoughts? — coelacan talk — 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody want to comment on this while we're all here today? That is, pro- or anti- removal of this link? — coelacan talk — 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm cool with chucking it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's spoken up against removing it, so I'm doing that now. — coelacan talk — 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the flag thing

How about using the "lambda" sign? Haiduc 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There isn't an image of it, and besides, no-one knows what the hell it means. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope I don't come across as being a WP:Dick over this, but from what I read at least in Wikipedia, the rainbow flag, in the context of LGBT, means gay pride, and to endorse gay pride on every page to do with LGBT in the encyclopedia is not really in line with NPOV. — Matt Crypto 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just looked (for inspiration) at the Nazism article, and that had the swastika as a template symbol, also a "pride" sign of sorts. Perhaps it is no big deal to leave things as they are, after all that is a representative symbol, and if there is no implied pov in a swastika, why should there be one here? Haiduc 13:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would distinguish between symbols that represent something and symbols that represent a POV of something. Sure, the distinction is not always clear cut, and symbols depend very much on their context and interpretation for their meaning. However, I think we have to be careful that we don't use symbols that are normally intended to convey a POV. I think this is such a case. The Swastika represented the Nazi party (later Nazi Germany) -- it doesn't have an intrinsic meaning that "the Nazi party is good". By contrast, the rainbow flag is not a neutral symbol of LGBT as such, but rather a symbol denoting gay pride: "The rainbow flag, sometimes called 'the freedom flag', has been used as a symbol of gay and lesbian pride since the 1970s. The different colors symbolize diversity in the gay community, and the flag is often used as a symbol of gay pride in gay rights marches" and "by the end of the 1970s the rainbow flag's connection with gay pride became generally known in the United States". Also after a quick Google, most references to the flag emphasise its use as a symbol of gay pride[1]. — Matt Crypto 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point, Matt - the symbol is almost always referred to as a "pride flag". However, in context, it doesn't always represent "pride" in being gay. Businesses use it to say they are "gay friendly". And in this context, it would be pretty silly to say an article was proud. Or even to say an article was gay. In context, it just symbolizes the gay community. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't imagine a sillier topic to debate than this one. This is pushing NPOV to the extreme. I suppose one could make the claim that we at the LGBT project are making some sort of statement of pride, but as has already been pointed out, the rainbow flag has evolved to become a symbol of all things LGBT. As such, I feel it is appropriate. While the pink triangle could be substituted, I don't feel that it is appropriate, since it is a symbol of our previous victimization; therefore I would be uncomfortable with a change to that. And while I am WP:AGF, yes, it does come across as WP:Dick. Jeffpw 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
SatyrTN is making a very good point; the flag is used in contexts other than "pride" such as business displays. There is no problem then, although if there had been a problem, there's still no other symbol that is more appropriate. And while it might not be necessary to have any symbol at all, nothing is wrong with this one so there's no reason to remove it. — coelacan talk — 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, I'll acquiesce to the majority, but I respectfully disagree. You are likely more familiar with the connotations of the flag than I, but the example that businesses use the flag to indicate they are "gay friendly" isn't really a convincing one to show that it's a neutral symbol. I would argue that even in the context of Wikipedia it looks like we're supporting a gay pride POV; it seems particularly out of place in articles like, for example, LGBT rights opposition and Homosexuality laws of the world. (P.S. Jeffpw, let's keep things genial, eh?). — Matt Crypto 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm nothing if not genial, Matt. However, you did express an implied concern that you might be coming across as WP:Dick; I simply felt it important to address your concern, and affirm it. I hope that clears up any concern about my motivations. Please WP:AGF Jeffpw 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. "I can't imagine a sillier topic to debate than this one" is not genial. Neither is feigning politeness while "affirming" that someone is a dick. But you know this. — Matt Crypto 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Wow. Nice. Lobojo (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I know this hasn't been brought up in a few months, but the flag really is out of place in NPOV articles unless they specifically address the LGBT rights movement (which the flag is a historical part of). The term LGBT, gay pride, and the gay pride flag are 20th Century inventions and have political and POV connotations with the modern LGBT movement, and have no NPOV place being branded on all articles relating to homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. Whatever your political or personal feelings are on LGBT issues: Homosexual affection, desires, sexual activity, have been going on since caveman days if not before, whereas "LGBT" is associated with a modern political movement for LGBT rights. I am not saying I am against LGBT rights, but POV political symbols should only be branded on articles specifically about said political movements, IMHO. Just putting this out there for discussion and kicking around, THx. --Caveman80 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Font size

This displays at a huge font size in my browser... AnonMoos 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What browser, and what platform? And if you know how to format templates, maybe you could copy it over to User:AnonMoos/templatetest and experiment until you get a result that works well? — coelacan talk — 21:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
MSIE 5.5. AnonMoos 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yikes. Are they still making security updates for IE 5.5? I just fixed up some bad markup on the current template. Look at that first, is it fixed? Then look at these and tell me if any of them are better: [2] [3] [4] There's some changes that might — might — go over better with your browser. — coelacan talk — 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The current template is still ultra-large, while [5] is slightly large, and [6] [7] are both normal... AnonMoos 02:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I replaced CSS em's with %'s that should render identically in standards-compliant browsers. Does it look right "out in the field" now? That was bad CSS handling on your browser's part, by the way. You might want to get the rendering and security updates in IE6, and I really recommend that you also getfirefox. — coelacan talk — 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
have to say, I don't why that is. I'm using Firefox, and I can't see any problems... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Because IE stinks... =) SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine in IE 6 and 7, so I guess you could say IE stank (in this instance at least). AnonMoos, why not upgrade to IE7, or at least IE6? If you can't upgrade because you're computer is too outdated, try the Opera browser, which is very effient and runs on almost anything. If it is a simple matter of you don't have admin rights to update, try Firefox portable - it's a fully functional, modern browser that you don't need to actually install anything (it just sits in a folder somewhere). Koweja 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It's fixed now anyway. If you're using IE 6 or 7 can you go look at the old version here and see if it looks different to you? I'd be interested in seeing how long these problems persisted in IE development. — coelacan talk — 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
True, I just offer tech support advice out of habit. Anyway, the old version looks perfectly fine in IE6 and IE7, so it much just have been a but in IE5.5 (imagine that...). We probably would have had more complaints by now if it caused a problem with those two. Koweja 23:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what, there are no images in Lynx. Do you think that wp ought to be change for sake of your old/incompatible/whatever browser? Current css confirms to standards. -- tasc wordsdeeds 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to these standards. — coelacan talk — 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Be a big boy/girl and find them yourself. -- tasc wordsdeeds 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't give policy or guideline links supporting your edits, then your edits should be reverted. — coelacan talk — 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You can give policy or guidelines links supporting your edits? -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point. If you can't provide a link saying that the edit is bad, your reverts are unjustified. JDtalk 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I think that initial change was unjustified. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? JDtalk 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Because, replace of good quality code to a bad code cannot be justified. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Tasc, yes, I can: WP:CONSENSUS. — coelacan talk — 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can't remain civil, you'll be blocked again. JDtalk 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with the version that stood before you came in here, Tasc? You haven't explained what the issue is. — coelacan talk — 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me! I came in here way before you. And I don't think that there were any problems with template before I left. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
AnonMoos had problems. I fixed them. By the way, if you feel that you own this template, then maybe you can explain why most of the css items weren't (and now aren't) closed with semicolons? — coelacan talk — 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As I noted below, users of Lynx can have problem as well. CSS items are not supposed to be closed with semicolon, 'cause semicolon is separator for properties. Don't you know such a basic thing? And note that by answering this question I do not admit that have a feeling of owing of this template. -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It is common courtesy to close all items so that another can be added later by a potentially sloppier editor without conflict. It's like putting the toilet seat down. In any case, you have not explained what is wrong with the edits as they were when you came in. What is wrong with them? — coelacan talk — 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
common curtesy - what kind of bs is that? potentially sloppy editor shouldn't be allowed to edit in a first place. And don't bring such ridiculous comparisons. You're bad at them.
I asked what was wrong with it before you intervene. Do you think that we should be responsible for every toaster, which doesn't display wp perfectly? -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If we can make Wikipedia backwards compatible without breaking it for modern browsers, then we should do so. Unless the use of %'s instead of em's makes the template render improperly for more modern browsers, then there is no reason to go back. — coelacan talk — 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request change to protected article

Requesting a revert to this version which was the last version adopted by consensus. User:Tasc has not even given a reason why it should be changed, the css edits were adopted to fix rendering problems in older browsers, and the css edits do not alter the appearence for newer browers. — coelacan talk — 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give it a while. I'll unprotect the template if tasc doesn't link to a policy page. JDtalk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
What consensus? because someone is using black and white display doesn't mean that we shouldn't have colours! -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about colours. JDtalk 19:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Metaphor -- tasc wordsdeeds 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's and admin watching, I'd like to request that tasc be blocked for violating the 3RV rule. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

tasc hasn't violated 3RR. JDtalk 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That's true at this time. J Di, since our version is explained and was embraced by every other editor lately except tasc, I don't think that our reverts amount to mere edit warring. If the issue continues, I ask that you please let SatyrTN and I handle this by the normal 3RR process, warn-warn-AN3, instead of locking the template again. — coelacan talk — 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
please stop it. it looks silly. was explained and embraced - if you don't want to see obvious thing - stay where you are. What's the deal? go and fill complain. Who forbids it? -- tasc wordsdeeds 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science?

Hi, I thought I had already posted this question, but it appears not. What do you all think about adding something about "science" or "biology" to the template? I got the idea while looking at the gay gene entry (which, btw, is now titled "Biology and Sexual Orientation"). Check it out, it's pretty good. --Dialecticas 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. We can also link to some of Kinsey's work. What other articles are there to add? Koweja 23:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not adamantly opposed to this, but I do see it as feature creep. This is already covered by template {{Sexual orientation}} so if you see an article that needs Biology and sexual orientation you can just add that template. Template {{LGBT}} is currently almost entirely sociological, and I'm not convinced that it shouldn't stay that way. I am all ears though. — coelacan talk — 02:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point, coelacan. But this brings to my mind another question: why is the template almost entirely sociological? The term "LGBT Studies" infers a thoroughgoing study of all LGBT issues, not just sociological insights. Do I have a point, or am I just making a fuss over nothing? --Dialecticas 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question. For whatever reason, the term "LGBT studies" tends to be used a little wider than sociologically, but generally not to the point of including biology. I am not certain that the template shouldn't be expanded as such. If it is, we might not want to stick with the term "lgbt studies". If it is decided that the whole scope of the template should be expanded, then including biology might not be feature creep. — coelacan talk — 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How/when to use?

Pardon my asking this here, but... An IP user recently added the {LGBT} template to the main article of Bottom (sex), while the {LGBTProject} template is also on the Talk page. I've seen the Project template on the Talk page of many (relevant) articles, but rarely the LGBT template on the front. Are the specific criteria for where/when the template belongs on the main article also? HalJor 18:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are no specific criteria. Generally it gets put onto articles that are directly about LGBT, like homosexuality, queer, gay pride etc. Bisexual and transgender articles have their own template. It's really a matter of personal judgement. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template protected

I've protected the template. Almost all recent edits have been vandalism. I will unprotect it if anyone requests. Leave a message on my talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text bleed over the border?

I've been editing an article in which the text bleeds over the border into the template at the top of the box. How can I prevent this from happening? You can see what I mean at San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. MusicMen 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was able to repair the problem by moving the LGBT Portal link, but if that's supposed to appear above, and not under, the template, the problem still exists. MusicMen 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could use {{LGBT-footer}} instead... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Image?

What do people think of the new image? I was surprised to see it, since I hadn't seen any discussion of it. I like it, but I think... Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth taking the discussion to WT:LGBT so more people see it. I've asked Dev if she knows of any discussion about the change. I think I like it too- but its kinda sudden... WjBscribe 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I love the image! It also makes my dorsal fin shiver with a foreboding of controversy. I think that since this appears on so many pages, and incorporates the Wikipedia logo, we ought to ask for wide input at WP:CN. — coelacan — 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think WP:CN would be going a bit far. The use of the Wikipedia logo on Wikipedia isn't that controversial. But some discussion wouldn't be a bad idea... WjBscribe 03:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the tone of WP:CN has changed a little bit since the first archive. It's pretty serious over there. What about WP:VPM? RFC is just so slooow. — coelacan — 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You have a dorsal fin?!?
Should we start with WT:LGBT and work our way up to whatever other forum sounds good? The alphabet soup drives me crazy. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I do! Don't tell me you've never looked at my userpage pic! Okay, I suggest we use this as the central point for discussion, since anyone who sees the image and feels like discussing it will naturally come here first (we all did). WT:LGBT is an obvious place, I'll go ask them to come over here and give feedback. I've convinced myself that WP:VPM is as good a place as any to get feedback from the non-LGBT Wikipedia community, so I'll go over there and leave a link back here too. — coelacan — 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted (not GFDL) and this image needs permission from the Wikimedia Foundation (which the license information does not currently claim). I don't know whether the Foundation is likely to approve it or not, but it shouldn't be used at all until somebody gets an answer. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure? It doesn't seem like the other derivative images in Commons:Category:CopyrightByWikimedia have any notes about granted permission on them. — coelacan — 04:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure, see m:Logo. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Very nice image. Haiduc 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Great image. Luv it! --Allyn 06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a nice image - makes me want to elevate the professionalism of the whole box to something like this; however, licensing definitely needs to be addressed first. ZueJay (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This image needs to come down immediately. The template is only used in the main namespace, and you remember when Matt Crypto argued that the rainbow flag was POV? Well, having a Wikipedia logo with LGBT stamped on it is VERY POV. And also the copyright issues. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the globe get permission from the foundation.Geni 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's ask Jimbo Wales for permission to use that globe because Jimbo is the board member of the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jet123 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the incorrect laws on map and other areas regarding Australia

i was looking at this map and other places on this article and found many inaccuracies regarding Australia.

1.Marriage and civil unions in Australia are still Taboo and i doubt very highly if it will ever be Law, due to the Marriages clause that state "marriage is a union of man and woman above all others ."

the only working model remotely close to a civil union is the registration scheme in Tasmania, where you register as a gay or non intimate couple, though this is not sticly just for homosexuals. also to note that Melbourne city has proposed this idea as well

Note: Tasmania, Victoria (from December 2007), Sydney city (The only part in NSW), Melbourne city also has a register relationships scheme.

2. the age of consent across the board in NSW and the ACT as well as some other states is 16 , regardless of anal sex or not,

Note: From 2006 - The Age of consent equal for ALL jurisdictions (state nor territory) exect queensland being 16 for V/O and 18 for A.

i really feel this "map" should be changed . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antstorm (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Christopher Street (importance)

Should Christopher Street (Manhattan) be added to this template? The significance of it is with respect to the Stonewall Inn and Stonewall Riots. --AEMoreira042281 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS timeline?

How this belongs here in this template, at least i dont understand. Template needs cleanup(rearrange). gl. Lara_bran 06:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] use on biographical articles

hey - someone just placed the LGBT template on the Annie Leibovitz article. AL was definitely involved in a relationship with Susan Sontag, and I think it's therefore fine for her to be in the LGBT categories. But series boxes are a bit much for biographical entries. Is there a policy for this already? Thoughts? --lquilter 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you've already removed it from the article, our thoughts are moot. At any rate, I agree that it shouldn't be on there. {{LGBT-footer}} may belong on there though. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal version

Is there a horizontal version of this info box? If not, could someone create one? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I edited the template

This box is present on a page about conversion therapy, which is about how homosexuality has been treated as an illness. To have the word 'queer' - which suggests insanity - at the top of such a page is offensive in the extreme (it is offensive in any case, of course, but especially offensive for the conversion therapy page). Skoojal (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have some problem with the use of the word queer. I am sorry but it is not derogatory in this context and is widely used in academic literature on the subject. The course of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#Category:Queer studies shows that your objections to the use of the term are not shared by other editors. WjBscribe 03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you have no control over how most people regard the word queer. It is offensive to most gay people and considered an insult. The fact that a tiny, unrepresentative academic sect likes this word does not change that fact. Stop for a minute and think about what using the word queer in an article about homosexuality being treated as an illness suggests! Don't you have any sense of decency? Skoojal (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that deleting material merely because of a personal bias is considered vandalism. Davodd (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it because it violated wikipedia's policies, which it seems wikipedia is perfectly able and willing to ignore. Your accusation of personal bias is juvenile. Skoojal (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-LGBT discrimination

I've just added a new rubric for the template: Anti-LGBT discrimination. The title of the rubric is linked to Category:Homophobia given that this is the most encompasing category, despite the restrictive "Homophobia" name. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)