Template talk:Sex

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

He's Right, You Know[edit]

Sex isn't all about gayness.

...that's fanfiction! --Kels 22:49, 23 December 2007 (EST)

If I am right, then how come you reverted my edit? 209.17.190.78 22:53, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Because the flag includes everyone. humanUser talk:Human 23:16, 23 December 2007 (EST)
How does it inudle everyone?
The point of the rainbow is to show the incredible range of human sexuality. Even so-called "straight" or heterosexual people engage in a wide variety of, um, "practices". Hence the rainbow flag. It even includes you. humanUser talk:Human 23:22, 23 December 2007 (EST)

How did the flag image get broken? It's still in the source, but vanishes before it loads. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:35, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, I see, it was too wide to fit in the table I guess. Fixed. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I widened it so that the title fits into one line. It worked for me though. Try changing the width in the first line -- Nx talk 17:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Well, I just made the image narrower until it worked. Weird that it worked for some and not others. Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:37, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Style[edit]

I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't make this into a wide, at-the-bottom-of-the-article style template, since it's buggering up our ability to appropriately thumbnail illustrations on quite a few shorter pages. Thoughts, anyone? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:30, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Reformat[edit]

As most of this doesn't revolve around pseudoscience, I just wanted to flag this up on talk first. I've recently gone and made a few sub-category templates all based around {{pseudosciencenav}}. IMHO, they're pretty, they're consistent and they're neat. Would anyone object to altering this one to match? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. These sidebars are really nice - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the red does clash with the flag, at least in my last edit I changed the colours slightly and it seems to match with the red in the flag. As for the things matching, I like the concept of a house style for RW articles, it's something worth working on in order to distinguish the look of the site from Wikipedia, which I think we often run the risk of being confused with. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
At least change the red to pink? (I will). I don't see a need for these all to look alike, but, whatever. By the way, there is a sizing error in all these - the box around the "header" title thing at 30 px high leaves a chunk of empty space below the text. I've changed a few to 20 so far. Why do they all have to say "part of the series on", by the way? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Better than "20" is to ditch the height tag entirely. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The "series on" comes from the pseudoscience template, I like it as a generic template header but if there are better wordings, please change it. The hot pink is... well, nice, sort of, very blithe and gay. But I see what you mean about the height parameter. I'll kill it on all of them. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. My only "quibble" with it is that most of these are random selections from the category that is auto-added, which isn't quite a "series". Not much of a big deal of course. Thanks for fixing the height thing, you remember where these things are better than I since you were just working on them. I come across them randomly... I wonder if they should go in a subcat of "navigation templates" to make them easier to find? Ditto the other "styles" of nav boxes we have? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it probably needs a bit ol' sorting out. I'll take a look. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops Scarlet A.pngd hominem 11:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Heternormative Bullshit.[edit]

Is there a way to have the intertwined male/female symbols at the bottom of the template randomly appear as various combinations of genders? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the title, and yes, if we have the images to select randomly from. Seme Blue 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, they are intertwined so it could be interpreted as intersex. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
we stole it from here, and there are several others : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity_symbols Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we just use any/all of those in a random fashion (except those that would render too small, like maybe the last one?) P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, using the #choose function. I happen to be away from my computer at the moment. Seme Blue 02:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have no idea to do that. Can somebody else? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done it. Seme Blue 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 04:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Yey! I got the symbol for spit-roasting! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd look better if we had little stick figures instead of gender symbols. Balaam (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Saving a seat for E.Wig[edit]

Solving this[edit]

Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat * Icon fedora.svg

Take a vote. No discussion allowed in this section; the above proves that it would be puerile. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

All deliberative systems have discussion, such as Robert's Rules. You're not going to allow it? Really? One side could be persuaded by the other. Taba (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
No persuasion will occur at the level of discourse you're showing. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You are using your power to dismiss ewigs points. And not allowing anyone else to discuss it. This isn't a way to have a fair website. It's a groupthink incubator. Taba (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There were 40 edits of "discussion". Everyone got mad; nothing got resolved. Enough talk; now vote. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

For Reverend Black Percy's version[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sex&diff=1747301&oldid=1747299

"We're so glad you came" Sex "Reach around the subject"

  1. Against the prudes, and in the name of punsters everywhere. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Duh.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. (((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. I like, therefore I vote. Nerd271 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. El percy negro tiene mi voto Worzelpete (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

For E.Wig's version[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sex&diff=1747299&oldid=1747298

"Part of the series on" Sex. "A baker's dozen on sex"

  1. Reverend literally made up the phrase "reach around the subject" and it's not funny, if that's even the best standard. Aside from the attacks and irrelevance, his entire justification is based on whether he can do something, not whether he should, and his vapid cheerleader has even less of substance to say. Embarrassing. Ë. (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. I came here via the template, not knowing what the subject under "discussion" (for what, 150 minutes?) was. I was mildly embarrassed by the schoolboy nudge-nudge-wink-wink humor, and before clicking on "talk", wondered to myself "did we really write those lame lines?" Puerile "joke" is puerile and unsophisticated. Nothing wrong with change, but this one (the ten month old one) was not an improvement. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)