This template 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.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
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)reply
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, neither 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)reply
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.
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)reply
Edit request, 15 November 2008
{{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)reply
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?
AletaSing16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Edit request, 3 December 2009
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Edit Request, 16 June 2020
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
OK, so your sandbox changes show your proposed change much more clearly than posting blobs of code into a talk page. Question on that: why are you using {{
URL}}? In fact, why use a full URL at all?
But this is not how we make test cases. All you should need to do is provide two example transclusions using identical parameters: one transclusion of the live template, and one of the sandbox - see for example the two lines immediately above your new lines. This should be explained at
WP:TESTCASES. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Redrose64: Ok -- I have now put the live template and the proposed changed template in the
sandbox.
Answer to your question on why I am using the {{URL}} template: The WikiProject uses a category to categorize all unassessed articles; however, unfortunately using {{[Category:Unassessed LGBT articles]}} ( I used single brackets for a reason since double brackets would yield {{}} ) does not show without viewing the source. The reason for this is because this source code is supposed to be used at the top of article to categorize them NOT to link the articles to categories in a template.
Let me show you in this example:
Example
As you can see, there is nothing in the box!
So, the only solution is to use {{URL}} or to use
[2]
No, no, no. With edits like
these, you're just making it even more difficult to work out exactly what you want done. In the box above, beginning "It is requested that an edit be made ...", do you see a link titled
sandbox diff? Click it. That compares the live template with the sandbox, and so should tell me what specific change is desired - but it doesn't. You seem to have added some headings and made extra copies of the template in there, which not only makes it difficult to work out what the specific change is, it also makes it impossible to test on the testcases page.
Start off by making the sandbox an exact copy of the live template, such that the sandbox diff link shows the text "(No difference)" - this is what I did
here. Then edit the sandbox, making only those changes that you would have made to the live template if it was not protected.
If you want to link a category, you don't need to jump through hoops - there are two easy ways; and one is very easy indeed.
H:WIKILINK explains in the last paragraph of that section that you merely need to insert a colon at the start:
Your link doesn't work, my browser throws a "Server not found" error. Why do you want to complicate matters by using templates like {{
URL}}? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
07:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply
These are your proposed changes. Please review
WP:TESTCASES again - it should be possible for an editor with the appropriate user right to copy the whole of the sandbox to the live template, replacing everything that is presently there; but I tell you straight - if they do that, there will be trouble because of broken transclusions.
Why do you want a {{
Sandbox notice}} to be added? That would be totally unacceptable on the live template.
Why do you want the {{
documentation}} removed? When a template has documentation, we always provide it.
Why do you want the </noinclude> tag to be removed? This will leave an unclosed <noinclude> tag whcich is bad practice.
Changes like these will simply not be put live. I am on the point of rejecting your request outright - and I haven't even got as far as looking for verification that WikiProject LGBT studies actually desires any of your changes. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)reply