Template talk:Animal rights

Images

I changed the images on the template to show a wider variety of species. Previously it had several primates (mostly of the a single species) and two domestic hoofed mammals. Currently it has one fish, one bird, one cetacean, one primate, one canid, and one large domestic hoofed mammal. More balance I'd say. VanTucky 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the formatting of this template messes up when viewed with Internet Explorer, but is fine with Firefox. I don't know why, but there may be a formatting problem in the code. Rockpocket 23:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's retarded IE, not the temp. VanTucky 23:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since the majority of people will read the article using IE, perhaps we should try and address it all the same? Rockpocket 23:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

course. I'm no good with something that technical though, so you might try the help desk. VanTucky 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The images look good, VT, thanks. Rockpocket, what is the template doing with IE? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It lines the images up in one long, horizontal line thereby squeezing the text boxes. This leads the textboxes to be really deep (vertically) to fit in all the text, and the entire template thus takes up about 2 screens. Its a real mess. I have checked it with two different version of IE on two different PCs. Rockpocket 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I wonder how it can be fixed. I'll ask someone who knows about these things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was about to say the same thing - these images mess up horribly on wide monitors. If you have a large monitor, each category takes up only a single line. So the images are all bunched together. We can't have content that depends on you having a certain environment, screen layout, etc. --BigDT 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a large monitor and it looks fine for me. Which browser are you using, DT? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time, I was on Firefox with XP on a widescreen monitor ... 1600x1080 I think. Now I'm on my home laptop (1024x768) running Firefox on Vista. The version with images still doesn't look great - it shows up as two rows each with three images, all of different heights. On the widescreen monitor at the office, it was one row with 5 images and another row with one - it looked awful. --BigDT 05:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Images, trying again

Do the images I've added now look any better? [1] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Syntax

I have added an optional 'state' parameter (from the parent navbar template) to determine the initial collapse state. For minimal impact, I set it to default to 'uncollapsed'. I have also added a syntax note on top of the template. Crum375 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Template:Alibend → Template:Animal rights — It needs a more descriptive page name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It could use a clear title for certain, but more importantly it shouldn't invoke the nonneutral term "animal liberation" if that can be avoided. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As with Gavia immer above, I think the neutrality benefits are paramount over the clarity benefits here. Luckily for us, both arguments suggest the same course of action. Serpent's Choice (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for clarity & neutrality. —innotata 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Mhiji (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I wish this hadn't been moved after three days. There are two AR templates, one vertical for inside articles, {{Animal liberation}}, and one for the end of articles, {{Alibend}}. Moving the latter makes this a little confusing, because now we have one animal liberation and one animal rights template, as though they're two separate things. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just realized that it opened on Dec 1. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As the above is the first I had heard of the other template, I've now opened a move request for that one as well; interested parties who contributed to this discussion are invited to also contribute to Template talk:Animal liberation#Requested move, including any better suggestions for the potential move target. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Too big

The template is more of a topic outline that a footer template. It is WAY TO BIG. It should be culled down to the mare slient articles. And I dont think the images are needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoah. Yes. (1) Get rid of the images. (2) trim down to the basics. This sort of template should not be a catalogue of every entry - it should focus on the key ones. --KarlB (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Links throw redirects

All links should @ navboxes be direct. Please change links which likk to redirects (there are 5+ such) to direct ones --Base^talkсontr. 13:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Add new entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism As we have other entries about animal sacrifice in various religions EeronTem (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Actually, this template has no animal sacrifice links. You will need to create a consensus that animal sacrifice topics are helpful and necessary in this template to add them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)