Template talk:Sex-stub

message: no offense, but something like this \mathrm{L\!\!^{{}_{\scriptstyle \Alpha}} \!\!\!\!\!\;\; \Tau\!_{\displaystyle \Epsilon} \! \Chi} would be much better. Of course it would have to say SeX not LaTeX, but I don't know latex. Lysis rationale (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow managed to make it say LaSeX and make it red: {\color{Red}\mathrm{L\!\!^{{}_{\scriptstyle \Alpha}} \!\!\!\!\!\;\; \mathbf{S}\!_{\displaystyle \Epsilon} \! \Chi}} but I can't get rid of the L and A. Lysis rationale (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're actually using (some might say misusing) math markup which is intended for the purpose of rendering mathematical equations as raster images.  There seems little point, since much the same effects could be accomplished purely textually using HTML tags, if desired.  An image which is to be used as a stub template icon is subject to a number of specific technical and visual requirements, which may mean that it can't do all the things that people would like it to do.  The main thing is to be simple enough to be relatively clear at a tiny pixel resolution, and to symbolize some main aspect or typical manifestation of the subject matter covered by the stub template, without having irrelevant strong  associations to subject matters not covered by the stub template... AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is unquestionably the best sex-stub image in existence. I believe it's used on the Russian Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going for the most common form of sex, missionary position would probably better. But that's not bad. -kotra (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's pretty obscure (I had to click on it and read the description to even figure it out), and if I'm interpreting it correctly, it only shows male-female intercourse. I think the above (current) option is still the best we have, since at its small size they could be any gender. -kotra (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it was "abstractly symbolic"  (for those who complained that  was too obviously specific...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think  > , but  > . -kotra (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the image sucks 

message: An improvement! -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. -- lucasbfr talk 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Outsider80 change

message: I too have to say that I found the symbol quite ironic when, while reading about Sandra Leiblum, I came across the article about the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services. The article mentions day-to-day experiences of people affected by heterosexism, while just a few centimeters below that sentence one can see :File:HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg as the sole symbol of sexuality. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the image author of :File:HeteroSym-pinkblue2.svg and I don't think it's the best image for this use (just among the images I've made :File:Sexes-planetary-sym-dimcolors.svg would be superior, as I first proposed in 2007).  However, :File:Sexual orientation - 4 symbols.svg is also not too useful for this purpose -- it suggests a range of sexual orientations, but does little to suggest sex itself, and when reduced to small icon size, it's somewhat complex, and hard to understand at a glance... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The symbol... again... 

message: I find it a bit strange that this template links to sexology, which is the "study of human sexuality". It seems far more appropriate that it link to human sexuality itself. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any other comment, I've changed the template to link to sexuality. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this link to [[Sexology]], or [[Human sexuality]]?