Template talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

message: *need to change Wikiproject Sex to Wikiproject sexology and sexuality, as well as wording.
*Graphic of female and male sex symbol will probably not be well received, and should be changed.  Although it is just symbolic, we will receive complaints that sex is jnot just about two people, and that it is not just about a male and a female either.  Sexuality is much broader, including same-sex relationships as well as polyamorous relationships.
*Also, I think template should be somewhat smaller
Atom 22:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a picture of some lube? The Wednesday Island 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes 

message: I would like to request that the following line be added to the banner:
 |MAIN_CAT            = WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
I have created the appropriate category, and have been cleaning up categories in the WikiProject.  I'm requesting this move to help expedite BLP referencing, with the aid of DASHBot.  Thanks! Clifflandis (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of parameter

message: Per the earlier comments on this page by Atomaton and the discussion at Portal talk:Sexuality, there seems to be consensus to change the graphic being used for this project. The current graphic is a limited heteronormative representation of sexuality that evokes weird connotations with the male symbol penetrating the female symbol. I propose changing the current graphic to :File:Sexual orientation - 4 symbols.svg until something more appropriate can be found. I particularly like Hfarmer's suggestion of an abstracted image of two figures embraced, but was unable to find anything that would work at Commons. Gobōnobō + c 20:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphic change

message: This template claims that this WikiProject is intended to "improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia", but not all articles about sexuality on Wikipedia are about humans. I think the template's wording should be changed in order to reflect this. Jarble (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you already changed Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/About to include non-human animal sexuality within the scope of that project, I can only assume that you are asking here instead of changing the template yourself because you can't change the template due to it being locked (full-protected). Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If animal sexuality isn't within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, then which WikiProject does it belong to? (Also, I decided to revert my edits - I should have discussed this issue on the talk page before making these edits myself.) Jarble (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should have reverted yourself. I approve of you adding "animal sexuality" (as in non-human animal sexuality). And as for asking WikiProject Sexuality about it, you aren't likely to get a reply since the project is significantly inactive. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[animal sexuality]] within the scope of this WikiProject?

message: The icon for the sex work task force is too small to be easily identifiable; personally, were I able to edit the template, I would substitute it for :File:Umbrella-159361.svg; the red umbrella is a recognised symbol of sex work. Sceptre (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , It looks like this file is used elsewhere by the SWTF, please propose at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/Sex work task force first, it looks like that project is fairly inactive, should you get no responses in a week reactivate this request by changing "answered" to no, and post the link to the other discussion. — xaosflux Talk 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding sources for the content has been difficult, but I am in the process of making huge freaking lists of reference sources of all kinds, and I think some of them might be relevant and useful to this group. Having said that, I actually don't know the subject that well, and if the umbrella is better and more easily recognized, changing the image makes sense to me. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

text: As per xaos's request, setting this back to unanswered, due to lack of replies on the Project talk page. Sceptre (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly a much clearer image. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 17 December 2014