Talk:International Transgender Day of Visibility/Archive 1
 | This page 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. |
Removed Proposed Deletion
I removed the deletion because the reason given is that the article is "not notable" but it is a notable holiday. It has been recognized and celebrated by many LGBT organizations including the Human Rights Campaign. It has been celebrated for 3 years and has definitely been established as an official holiday within the LGBT community, even though it is a new holiday. Pianosandwich (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)pianosandwich
Recent layout edits
@Castncoot: I respect that your recent edits were made in good faith, but I think they make the layout of this page look much worse. As with the Transgender Day of Remembrance where you've made similar edits, I do not want to appear self-serving by restoring a photo I took to a more prominent position on the page, but I would like to discuss with other editors whether your changes have improved the page. I don't believe having a large generic transgender symbol is preferable to having a photo taken at an observance of the event. Also pinging Mathglot who reverted your changes earlier. Funcrunch (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also note, per your edit summary about the trans sidebar, that as I mentioned on Talk:Transgender Day of Remembrance, the trans sidebar is this template, which has the transgender flag, not the symbol you've inserted. Funcrunch (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
See also
I reverted the addition of the link "International Transgender Day of Remembrance" from the See also section. An objection to this removal was raised at Talk:International Transgender Day of Remembrance in off-topic asides here and here. The place to discuss what is appropriate in the See also section on this article, is this talk page.
User:Castncoot, My understanding is that you believe that consistency demands a reciprocity of links in the "See also" sections of different articles that all contain the same transgender sidebar; so that if article A has link B in its See also, then article B should have link to A in its "See also" section, and vice versa. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your view.)
However, this argument is incorrect. Rather, International Transgender Day of Visibility/Archive 1 should not contain a link to International Transgender Day of Remembrance in the "See also" section, because of what guideline WP:NOTSEEALSO says about links already contained in the article. Hope this helps clarify. Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I fail to understand what you are saying. All that WP:NOTSEEALSO states is that redlinked topics and dab pages should not be listed as entries. I see nothing about not including reciprocity, because precluding reciprocity would defeat the very purpose of WP:MOS:SEEALSO. Castncoot (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- It seems a bit disingenuous to stop reading WP:NOTSEEALSO just before the sentence that is germane here, and obviously it's not the one about dab links. Do you really want me to copy/paste a sentence out of a very short guideline page here?
- In addition, if you wish to make a case for "reciprocity", you need to quote a guideline that *does* mention it, not one that *does not*. I can quote a hundred guidelines that do not mention it, but I'm afraid that gives you no support for your argument. The burden of proof is on you to find one that does. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
controversies section not really controversies?
hatred that happened at the high school isnt really a controversy, nor is the indian thing. i think the category needs a different name because its not as if theres push back from the community about the holiday, its religious transphobia and police violence. 1.126.106.41 (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)