This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Although the outside border is neater, it is harder to read the subcategories now that their colors have been removed.
Also, "homophobia" and the like are forms of discrimination, not simply views; nor are they necessarily "opposing", either. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2008 (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)
Is there a horizontal version of this info box? If not, could someone create one? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As of this date and time the template is as close to ideal as possible despite previous dragging out and butchering. If there are any essential concepts that must stand on their own, please include them while keeping in mind format issues. --CJ Withers (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is kinda minor, but I'd like to change the picture to this, it is wayyyyyy better: [1] Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Since the sidebar was replaced in the Lesbian article, is there a way to connect it to the image at the top of the article, so that it appears as a seamless infobox with 2 images? Like the infobox for Everglades National Park? Apparently I can rewrite the article but I can't figure out the codey code code to fix that. I think it would be an interesting and unifying visual to do that for the core articles in LGBT. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The picture is non-NPOV. It is a glorifying picture and not neutral. It flies the flag in a romanticised, idealised way, the flag show be presented neutrally, like the flags, shields, etc. for countries. If it is just presented as is, then it is neutral, you see it for what it is, not in any idealised fashion. - User:Dalta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.192.167 (talk) (signing this now as my own post Dalta (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
This is nonsensical. To the question "Should homosexuality be accepted by society?" 86% of Swedes say yes. Among people who are 18-39 years old, this support reaches to 91% [2]. Thats hardly intolerance. This isnt NPOV. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)