Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium. 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 |
Save the Gotem
Currently we're working to restore some articles after they were viciously deleted by a crazy Wikipedian (Gurch):
Damn, looks like we only got to save Gotem for the time being.
Scope
Hmm.. looks 2me as if this project could use a wider scope than municipalities...
Anyway, I just created Gorki (band), if anyone cares to take a look, most welcome!
ciao, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Waving flags
As this Wikiproject is named, with its template for a banner waving the Belgian flag, I would consider it a blatant Belgicist POV to use the template on (even talk pages of) municipalities, (most) arrondissements, or provinces or any other institutions which are by the Belgian Constitution brought under the strict or main competences of the regions or the communities. And I do not suggest waving regional or community flags instead, though there would be stronger arguments in favour of such - this project should not invite others to so-called improve towards such. Please rephrase the template text so as to clearly suggest respecting all present official institutions as democratically came to exist. Either leave out the flag, or make a group image of the Belgian flag and the four flags of the three regions and three communities. — SomeHuman 13 Oct2006 18:35 (UTC)
- We adhere to NPOV; Belgium is just used as a topic, not in the constitutional sense, therefore the template text can remain. You're suggestion is obviously tied to the prior discussion, where I only sought to bring in the advice of more people: we are not a Belgicist pressure group, but a WikiProject, and as such we can put the banner on any article that relates to our topic. Your -rather aggressive- comment is quite undeserved.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your opposition to the template. Are you claiming that any of these municipalities are not a part of Belgium? All people born in any of these municipalities have a Belgian passport, must obey the Belgian laws, etcetera. That a number (or even a large number) of competences belong to the regions and/or the communities (which are of course in itself all part of Belgium as well) does not change this fact. The project Belgium does not in any way imply that Belgium is more iomportant, that Flanders or Wallonia or whatever does not or should not exist, or even that Belgium should remain. It is a grouping of a number of articles which by all logical defnition can be included in a project about all things Belgian, even though all of them could also belong to one or more other projects, existing or not (Arno can belong to the Projects Belgium, Bio, Music, Flanders, Ostend, Belpop, Chanson, ..). This project and its template is not taking any political stance, but is about all subjects that can by any reasonable defintion be considered to relate also to Belgium. Fram 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- To give an idea how projects work, see Talk:Willy Vande Walle. This is a correct use of a project, and adding the project:belgium template to it would be correct as well. Fram 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dutch people do not have a problem with the Dutch flag. But waving flags is not neutral in a Belgian context, on the contrary. Both the flag and the text of the banner suggest a violation of NPOV, believe me. A 'Project Chanson' on the topic 'Chanson' will not make someone shout chansonism!, as such does not exist. Belgicism does, and is a POV. I'm not being aggressive, and would like to join the project to which Stevenfruitsmaak invited me on my talk page. But as someone already pointed out in another section (to which I too pointed in still another section), topics regarding competences of Belgian institutions quickly cause unpleasantly lengthy discussions that hardly help to improve articles. For that reason, I claimed to fight thoughtless (or if one prefers, insufficiently taking all aspects in consideration) usage of a banner that I am sure would trigger controversy debates. That goes as well for names of articles.
- I did not assume the people working at this project to be Belgicists at all (I know and very much appreciate some of them as Wikipedians), but still do not wish to be associated with a project on Belgium that starts by not paying attention to the politically delicate aspects. People do not see intentions, they see a banner. I'm afraid that the current one would jeopardize the authentic interest of the project. Do not forget that the same banner will appear on politically delicate and debated articles as well as on chanson.
- I have put it and am putting it clearly without beating about the bush, because one should reconsider the banner before it gets noticed and might burn the project in an undesired way, which would not remain to be undeserved if one would knowingly neglect to be cautious. As stated, I would much rather join the project than have to fight it. NPOV is not just a declaration of intend, but a perpetual attitude shown by practical actions. So think about creating a banner that cannot seem to indicate bias or POV, even to biassed readers. I would vaguely suggest on topics regarding any interest roughly within the territory of Belgium but I assume one might find a better way so as to indicate in what sense 'Belgium' is to be understood. And drop the flag before it gets burnt. — SomeHuman 13 Oct2006 21:39 (UTC)
- Dutch people do not have a problem with the Dutch flag. But waving flags is not neutral in a Belgian context, on the contrary. Both the flag and the text of the banner suggest a violation of NPOV, believe me. A 'Project Chanson' on the topic 'Chanson' will not make someone shout chansonism!, as such does not exist. Belgicism does, and is a POV. I'm not being aggressive, and would like to join the project to which Stevenfruitsmaak invited me on my talk page. But as someone already pointed out in another section (to which I too pointed in still another section), topics regarding competences of Belgian institutions quickly cause unpleasantly lengthy discussions that hardly help to improve articles. For that reason, I claimed to fight thoughtless (or if one prefers, insufficiently taking all aspects in consideration) usage of a banner that I am sure would trigger controversy debates. That goes as well for names of articles.
- You're right about the unpleasant lengthy discussions. The flag is just used as a symbol of Belgium, our central topic. Do you have an idea for another clear, well-known but less delicate image that symbolises "Belgium"? A Belgian flag makes me think "Belgium", not "Belgicist NPOV!", even on the most disputed article. I seriously doubt that would harm the project, anyone who jumps to conclusions like that forgets the obvious: this is just another regional wikiproject.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- It makes you think "Belgium". On an article regarding Belgium, say on a Flemish province, it makes some other people think "belgicism". A banner for this project should allow being used on any article regarding Belgium without having to consider whether it is a good idea. People cooperating on a project 'Belgium' may not have identical perceptions as people who might start a project 'Flanders', which could be a very NPOV project as well. Please note that 'belgicism' is a POV, a (deliberate or incidental) point of view, or it is a violation of NPOV (by not taking care of a proper neutral point of view).
- I could suggest a rather thin vertical black/yellow/red band (as if a thick mast) attached to on the top left the twice as wide but half-height flag of the German-speaking Community, to its right the Walloon (Region+Community) flag, on the bottom left that of the Flemish (Region+Community) and to its right the flag of the Brussels-Capital Region. That order does not suggest pushing one or another controversial flag forward or backward. I'm not particularly fond on flag waving even then, but the only other symbol for the whole of Belgium that I can think of, is a tip bag of French (sic) fries. ;-)
- Actually, there is one possibility that can be a simple shape that can well serve as a logo, that is internationally associated with the whole of Belgium, and with Belgium alone: the (closed) typically shaped box of Belgian chocolats (pralines in Dutch, French and even in English). — SomeHuman 14 Oct2006 01:20-01:59 (UTC)
- If we have a Wikiproject Belgium, then its obvious logo is the Belgian flag. Either they are both POV, or neither. In my opinion, neither are POV, as they describe an existing situation. This does not stop you or anyone from creating a Wikiprogject Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels, or Zichem-Zussen-Bolder (well, I would oppose the last one since its scope is way too small :-) ), as long as they are about imporving articles in a NPOV way. Deciding which articles can fall under such projects is quite straightforward, and is not POV, since no project has a priori exclusivity on a subject (although projects can in mutual agreement decide that some subject is better suited for project A or project B). When people try to inject their POV in a project, either by using it as promotion of the current political situation, or as a means to stress some desired change, then we need to make the articles or the project again NPOV and warn the user that this is not allowed. But the current project and its banners, templates, ... are about as neutral as they can get, and describe a current situation (Belgium) without indicating any preference for it over Europe, Flanders, Greater Germany, or La Francophonie. If you or anyone else feels uncomfortable contributing with anything that has the name "Belgium" attached to it, then don't join the project. This does not exclude you in any way from editing any article that falls in the scope of the project, just like I'm still allowed to edit Willy Vande Walle even though it is now part of the Wikiproject Japan. But don't try to impose a non-existent amalgam of symbols instead of the interantionally recognised one for Belgium, just to emphasize the federalism. That is POV and injecting politics into a neutral, normal, logical Wikiproject. Fram 11:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of drawing up an alternative banner template featuring the flags of the Communities and the Regions, which can be found here. I thought it might serve as a compromise.--Ganchelkas 14:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- Answer to Fram [edit conflict with Ganchelkas: will have a look]: I never expressed any objection to the name of the project. I dispute your assumption that the Belgian flag, be it the obvious and internationally recognized logo for Belgium, is NPOV when applied on articles such as the regions, the communities, municipalities with linguistic facilities, organizations that and artists or politicians who build their image explicitly and exclusively on an association with one particular community or region, and so on. Wikipedia needs to be NPOV but its topics may be very much POV. Flag waving is often considered to be making a statement, which in not NPOV. (For all clarity, quote from the article linked by 'Flag waving': "In politics this cliché is frequently employed as a metaphoric description of patriotism. In this context, it can be a compliment, or, more often, an insult or accusation of excessive patriotism, or flamboyant patriotism, or deception.") [my emphasis]. Pasting the 'obvious' logo in combination with the name Belgium on topics that/who fall within the country's territorial boundaries but are and/or wish to be rather disassociated from the nationality, is no longer NPOV. That is what should be avoided in the interest of the WikiProject Belgium, and why I finally suggested a logo that is internationally just as well-known or unknown as the Belgian flag, but is by no means perceived as flag waving and is never associated with any kind of nationalism: the pralines box. — SomeHuman 14 Oct2006 14:12 (UTC)
- Reaction on Ganchelkas' template: Though the Belgian flag is larger than the other flags, and the order of the smaller flags is less interesting than what I had half-heartedly suggested before (that one gave the smallest community the most prevalent place (top left) because that community is comparatively hardly ever a controversial matter, both other communities=regions' flags on second-best place (top-right [top is obvious] and bottom-left [left=at the mast, in reading order before right], the least prevalent place logically for the smallest region [in which both major communities are present]), and though it is still a bit of flag(s) waving, and though I kind of liked the idea of the pralines box, it is an improvement. Perhaps try the pralines box (I still prefer it), it has the further advantage of needing just one logo that can also serve on the much smaller templates that members of the WikiProject may put on their user pages. It also allows the project banner to maintain normal height, the regional/communities flags force having a rather more obtrusive higher banner. — SomeHuman 14 Oct2006 14:38-17:00 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of drawing up an alternative banner template featuring the flags of the Communities and the Regions, which can be found here. I thought it might serve as a compromise.--Ganchelkas 14:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- If we have a Wikiproject Belgium, then its obvious logo is the Belgian flag. Either they are both POV, or neither. In my opinion, neither are POV, as they describe an existing situation. This does not stop you or anyone from creating a Wikiprogject Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels, or Zichem-Zussen-Bolder (well, I would oppose the last one since its scope is way too small :-) ), as long as they are about imporving articles in a NPOV way. Deciding which articles can fall under such projects is quite straightforward, and is not POV, since no project has a priori exclusivity on a subject (although projects can in mutual agreement decide that some subject is better suited for project A or project B). When people try to inject their POV in a project, either by using it as promotion of the current political situation, or as a means to stress some desired change, then we need to make the articles or the project again NPOV and warn the user that this is not allowed. But the current project and its banners, templates, ... are about as neutral as they can get, and describe a current situation (Belgium) without indicating any preference for it over Europe, Flanders, Greater Germany, or La Francophonie. If you or anyone else feels uncomfortable contributing with anything that has the name "Belgium" attached to it, then don't join the project. This does not exclude you in any way from editing any article that falls in the scope of the project, just like I'm still allowed to edit Willy Vande Walle even though it is now part of the Wikiproject Japan. But don't try to impose a non-existent amalgam of symbols instead of the interantionally recognised one for Belgium, just to emphasize the federalism. That is POV and injecting politics into a neutral, normal, logical Wikiproject. Fram 11:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- It makes you think "Belgium". On an article regarding Belgium, say on a Flemish province, it makes some other people think "belgicism". A banner for this project should allow being used on any article regarding Belgium without having to consider whether it is a good idea. People cooperating on a project 'Belgium' may not have identical perceptions as people who might start a project 'Flanders', which could be a very NPOV project as well. Please note that 'belgicism' is a POV, a (deliberate or incidental) point of view, or it is a violation of NPOV (by not taking care of a proper neutral point of view).
- I like what Ganchelkas has done. French fries or pralines: no, we are not WikiProject Food.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you prefer to be WikiProject Rags? A short reaction is not always a valid argument. I said 'the typically shaped box', thus a ballotin.
- A quote:
The famous Belgian Chocolate : " praline " and " ballotin ".
From the beginning of its history in Belgium, the chocolate was considered as a gift.
In 1912, the belgian confectionery created the " praline ", a filled chocolate mouthful which perfectly complied with its gift vocation. To protect the delicate nature of the " praline ", an adequate packaging has been patented under the name of " Ballotin ". - A picture that shows about what I mean is here (maybe even just the trapezoid shape in gold colour without gift wrap or ribbon), I think that's better than the embassy's open box — SomeHuman 15 Oct2006 02:11 (UTC)
- Or national flag clearly symbolises Belgium, if you chocolates they will think "chocolates". They're not a synonym for Belgium. I think we've addressed your concerns by changing the banner, and I would like to here some other opinions here too.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Except in Belgium and immediately neighbouring countries, far more people know pralines as Belgian than can recognize our flag. Closer by, both stand about equal. A 'symbol' is not a synonym for a 'synonym', be it a flag or a ballotin. — SomeHuman 15 Oct2006 18:28 (UTC)
- Yes I'm sure, but pralines do not symbolise Belgium as well as the flag does. That's my opinion, you're opinion is also clear, let's hear from some others?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I like the new banner by Ganchelkas. I oppose one with fries, pralines, ... as the Belgian flag is by far the most clear symbol for Belgium internationally (I know, I used another symbol for the user page template, but there everyone can choose which one to use: here, only one banner is possible). And I don't care if anyone wishes to be disassociated from Belgium and/or the flag: we are describing a current situation as internationally recognized: I am not going to add the Flemish Lion to the article about Sluis because "they" want to be a part of Flanders. This is not the place to bring political wishes, dreams, and struggles, but the place to describe the current situation, and the situation is that all communities in Flanders (Belgian Flanders at least) are communities in Belgium, whether you or the majority likes it or not. And this is the Wikiproject Belgium, what flag do you expect us to show? It is your idea that makes the flag a negative symbol, and you seem to be the only one that sees using the flag as a symbol for Belgium as some provocation. If you want a Wikiproject Flanders, be my guest, create one, and put the Lion on it. But don't expect us to change a normal, logical, internationally recognised image because you or anyone else could be interpreting it as politically inspired flag waving. Fram 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I cited the Wikipedia article demonstrating that people will see what you remain blind for. — SomeHuman 15 Oct2006 20:27 (UTC)
- The rest of your babble... Perhaps I dream of pralines sometimes. I never disputed either content here or acceptance of any current political situation anywhere - on the contrary. What's eaten you? — SomeHuman 15 Oct2006 20:39 (UTC)
- You have demonstrated nothing; the article you cite shows that using the cliché of "flag waving" (which you did, no one else) can be seen as an insult, not that showing a flag in a banner is a case of insulting clichématic flag waving. Fram 05:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I like the new banner by Ganchelkas. I oppose one with fries, pralines, ... as the Belgian flag is by far the most clear symbol for Belgium internationally (I know, I used another symbol for the user page template, but there everyone can choose which one to use: here, only one banner is possible). And I don't care if anyone wishes to be disassociated from Belgium and/or the flag: we are describing a current situation as internationally recognized: I am not going to add the Flemish Lion to the article about Sluis because "they" want to be a part of Flanders. This is not the place to bring political wishes, dreams, and struggles, but the place to describe the current situation, and the situation is that all communities in Flanders (Belgian Flanders at least) are communities in Belgium, whether you or the majority likes it or not. And this is the Wikiproject Belgium, what flag do you expect us to show? It is your idea that makes the flag a negative symbol, and you seem to be the only one that sees using the flag as a symbol for Belgium as some provocation. If you want a Wikiproject Flanders, be my guest, create one, and put the Lion on it. But don't expect us to change a normal, logical, internationally recognised image because you or anyone else could be interpreting it as politically inspired flag waving. Fram 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I'm sure, but pralines do not symbolise Belgium as well as the flag does. That's my opinion, you're opinion is also clear, let's hear from some others?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Except in Belgium and immediately neighbouring countries, far more people know pralines as Belgian than can recognize our flag. Closer by, both stand about equal. A 'symbol' is not a synonym for a 'synonym', be it a flag or a ballotin. — SomeHuman 15 Oct2006 18:28 (UTC)
- Or national flag clearly symbolises Belgium, if you chocolates they will think "chocolates". They're not a synonym for Belgium. I think we've addressed your concerns by changing the banner, and I would like to here some other opinions here too.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I took my name from the list, I prefer working on topics where I can't be accused of pov. It didn't last long... It could be expected that we would get discussions like this, but such heavy opposition against the use of the country's flag as a symbol for the country is just too much for me. Poor Flanders, that it spends its time on this. Piet | Talk 08:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fram, the cliché gets its name because of the reputation of the actual act.
- Piet, POV and breaching NPOV are not quite the same. Your Poor Flanders phrase assumes which community in Belgium generally prefers to keep matters at federal level, and which community generally strives for a further regionalization (or even separation as for a part of that community). You state 'It could be expected; I agree and I expect it. Therefore I argue against the use of a flag: It is better to anticipate and argue here, than to find oneself caught in debates in several articles on actual topics afterwards just because of a logo rubbing people the wrong way.
- — SomeHuman 16 Oct2006 12:02 (UTC)
- The article clearly shows that the insult is calling someone a flag waver, not using a flag as a symbol for a country. So by your own admission, you have insulted us by calling us flag wavers. And if you are not offended or rubbed the wrong way by the use of the flag, then why do you try to get rid of it because of some hypothetical person who might be offended? You are the one claiming that using the internationally recognised official flag of a country as a symbol for that country in a project about that country, is a POV which should be avoided. Apart from showing that calling other people "flag wavers", like you did, is a potential insult, you have not given one good argument to not have the flag, and have convinced no one of your point of view. A new banner has been proposed as a compromise by ganchelkas, why don't we all just agree on that one and move on to more productive issues? Fram 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- As said, it can only be the name of an insult because waving flags can be felt as insulting. You put words into my mouth that I never used: I never called a person a flag waver, just warned how a logo may become interpreted as flag waving in particular if an article is not about the country (there is no objection to be expected or acceptable about a Belgian flag in the article 'Belgium' of course), but about a subject that merely happens to be inside the Belgian territory. Ostentatively put: try putting the WikiProject Belgium banner with the flag of Belgium on the Filip Dewinter talk page... – your assumption of reactions (not the person) being hypothetical appears too obviously naive to me, for my anticipation to be POV. — SomeHuman 16 Oct2006 14:31 (UTC)
- You name the section "waving flags", you link to the article "flag waver" (which you then use as evidence that using the falg can be insulting, which is circular reasoning), and then you complain that I put words in your mouth? If you don't equate "flag waving" with "being a flag waver", then you can't use "flag waver" as support for your notion that flag waving can be insulting. And for your example: Philip Dewinter is a Belgian, whether he likes it or not. He is a major Belgian politician, trying to change or even break Belgium. This does not exclude him from being a part of Wikiproject Flanders, Europe, Biography, or whatever: a project is an indication of some aspect of some subject, not an indication of his main characteristic, his personal preference, or a political statement. And it seems to me quite bizarre that someone would agree with him being included in the Wikiproject Belgium, as long as it doesn't use the Belgian flag... And I don't call your anticipation POV, I say that you claim that usinng the flag of a country in a project about that country is a POV which should be avoided, and I (nor apparently anyone else for the moment) sees how this would be POV, since using the flag for a country is about the most NPOV possible. Fram 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- As said, it can only be the name of an insult because waving flags can be felt as insulting. You put words into my mouth that I never used: I never called a person a flag waver, just warned how a logo may become interpreted as flag waving in particular if an article is not about the country (there is no objection to be expected or acceptable about a Belgian flag in the article 'Belgium' of course), but about a subject that merely happens to be inside the Belgian territory. Ostentatively put: try putting the WikiProject Belgium banner with the flag of Belgium on the Filip Dewinter talk page... – your assumption of reactions (not the person) being hypothetical appears too obviously naive to me, for my anticipation to be POV. — SomeHuman 16 Oct2006 14:31 (UTC)
- The article clearly shows that the insult is calling someone a flag waver, not using a flag as a symbol for a country. So by your own admission, you have insulted us by calling us flag wavers. And if you are not offended or rubbed the wrong way by the use of the flag, then why do you try to get rid of it because of some hypothetical person who might be offended? You are the one claiming that using the internationally recognised official flag of a country as a symbol for that country in a project about that country, is a POV which should be avoided. Apart from showing that calling other people "flag wavers", like you did, is a potential insult, you have not given one good argument to not have the flag, and have convinced no one of your point of view. A new banner has been proposed as a compromise by ganchelkas, why don't we all just agree on that one and move on to more productive issues? Fram 13:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fram, the cliché gets its name because of the reputation of the actual act.
- SomeHuman, you are obviously a Flemish separatist. That's fine. It's possible there are other members too in this project who don't like Belgium either. I dare to be critical about it too! If you think certain structures, politicians,... are bad in Belgium, you could help by writing an article about it, or improving/correcting an already existing one. Without disregarding the truth of course. I came here to work together, with Flemings and Walloons, because apparently there is still LOTS of work to be done. I find it sad that Piet just LEFT because of a fight like this.Evilbu 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- This discussion is becoming sterile. The whole project is about all wikipedia pages concerning places, people, products, and whatever related to Belgium as a geographical entity, independent from regions, communities, provinces or whatever. The term Belgian here encompasses Flemish, Wallooon, etc...
- As a single icon to represent this whole panoply, the Belgian flag seems the most obvious choice, and it should in no way be regarded here as a political choice. The ones who may object to this just admit their own extremist POV anyway.
- One must remember that Wikipedia is intended for a worldwide audience in need of comprehensive information without having first to understand the intricacies of Belgian politics. For most of the world, places like Anderlecht, Willebroek or Malmédy (to take a random three from each of the regions) are located foremostly in Belgium, and they are eligible to be covered under this project.
- The same applies all people living of having lived here, be it Arno, Panamarenko or Elio Di Rupo, yes even Philip Dewinter!
- So please stop this pointless discussion and let's work together to improve all things Belgian on Wikipedia!!!
- LHOON 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Showing a flag is too often political to ignore that very fact. I'm sure people might burn a flag because it's old and dirty. It may not be perceived that way especially when done publically. I object to pushing a flag in front of people's eyes, knowing they may not like either the flag or the act of using a flag. That goes for any flag and does not indicate me or even all or most of those people to be extremists of any kind. The project should be able to cover all subjects Lhoon mentions. Since we know (like it or not) that not all people appreciate a flag banner, the banner is not fit for the claimed purpose of the project. — SomeHuman 16 Oct2006 19:38 (UTC)
- ...Why don't we just leave "WikiProject Belgium" in the banner, but remove the flag. I'm sure only SomeHuman is insisting that much. I must say that I am really disappointed that while I feared for some Walloon-Flemish tensions, possibly about factual accuracy, I find a Fleming leaving because he's tired of the dispute with another Fleming.
- What do you think? Just DUMP the flag? Or otherwise I'm afraid everyone is just gonna leave! It's sad, there hasn't been a single dispute here up until now, everyone was just proposing, correcting, improving....Evilbu 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't we leave the 5 flags in the banner, and dump SomeHuman ? If he doesn't like this WikiProject, he is not forced to participate.
- Also : let's stop feeding the troll. --83.182.228.19 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Showing a flag is too often political to ignore that very fact. I'm sure people might burn a flag because it's old and dirty. It may not be perceived that way especially when done publically. I object to pushing a flag in front of people's eyes, knowing they may not like either the flag or the act of using a flag. That goes for any flag and does not indicate me or even all or most of those people to be extremists of any kind. The project should be able to cover all subjects Lhoon mentions. Since we know (like it or not) that not all people appreciate a flag banner, the banner is not fit for the claimed purpose of the project. — SomeHuman 16 Oct2006 19:38 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
- When? June 2015
- How can you help?
- 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
- 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!