Template talk:PairingProfile

Add mailing lists or communities/boards? --Seperis 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, but some pairings have huge numbers of lists/comms/boards devoted to them, so I was waffling over whether that'd be better left for the page itself. What do you think? --Arduinna 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe mention list if there's no primary archive? Good point; there can be a lot of lists. Probably best to keep that in a section of the article. --Seperis 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How about something about the important of the pairing in the fandom? I can't think of a good one or two-word way to say that, but maybe just ubiquity of pairing, where people would type common, small or rare? Argh. Please help me on this.

Also, while I'm asking -- how about slash/het and canon/non-canon?--Sherrold 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How's that? I'm not in love with the wording, especially "gender category", but I don't want to privilege one set of terms over any others, and kludgy as it is, that's all that came to mind. --Arduinna 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

|prevalence=!! awesome! |category= for het/slash/yuri, etc? Makes as much sense as anything I came up with.

Hmm, just had another thought. You know, we could routinely use the top of Template Talk pages for an example, or a brief help section for that Template. That could be very useful!--Sherrold 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried an example, but it makes the page too unwieldy, so I went for a key. I am happy to take suggestions for wording the key, if it looks helpful to people. *g* --Arduinna 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is awesome, Arduinna! Absolutely what I wanted, yet even cooler!Sherrold 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about how these templates work. When I go to a pairing page, say Harry/Draco, the info box shows all the fields of the template, including the more recently added like "canonical" but when I try to fill those fields out, i.e. view the article in editing mode, the new fields don't show up, so you can't fill this in easily. I guess manual copying of the missing options will work, but it is confusing that you see fields in the displayed page, but not in the editor.--Ratcreature 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bah, I hadn't realized the fields wouldn't carry over, although I supposed that makes sense -- the original was copy-pasted in for editing, so I guess the updated version would have to be, as well, while the visuals get pulled directly from the template page itself. Sorry! --Arduinna 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Random question: Since we have a whole lot of ships now that aren't pairings, could this template be renamed to "RelationshipProfile" or something more neutral? That would also allow for the really common gen ships to be added with less awkwardness. Just a thought. ^_^ -the old briar pipe (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:RelationshipProfile makes sense to me and is an easy fix. If no one objects, I can rename it (unless someone else beats me to it).--æþel (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be really awesome, if everyone's okay with it. *g* -the old briar pipe (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that makes more sense... especially for gen relationship. Its not going to affect all the pairing pages is it? --Harpie (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I just updated the change on the template page, and this should propagate through all the existing pages. Since I didn't change the actual field names, everything should display correctly on all the pages. HOWEVER, I just realized that the category name (and all the subcategories under it) is still Pairings. We should probably change these as well, but it's a little more involved, so... --æþel (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yay, thank you! \o/ As for the categories, wow. I didn't even think to look at those, but yeah, they're chock full of polyships and gen relationships. That's a big project, though. What would you suggest? -the old briar pipe (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I can help out moving the pages and whatnot, it'll be "Relationships" now right?--Harpie (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I set up the Relationships category. It turned out not to be too difficult, as most pages just had the relationship template transcluded.--æþel (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Category"

I was poking through Twitter and happened to notice a comment directed at this particular page and thought it may be a good idea to bring up the user's concerns here. The particular Tweets are here. The user pointed out that as it stands, the examples listed for pairing type don't include any more recent phrasing, which I'm assuming they may mean "mlm," "wlw," and maybe "datemates." As someone considered non-binary myself, I can't quite say I've ever heard of any other pairing type that's specific to non-binary couples outside of the vague "datemate," but even then I'm not so sure how often it's used as a pairing "category" for shipping. Well, point is is they pointed out that maybe there should be some more modern category examples next to the older ones, if that seems like something that others here feel needs doing. Patchlamb (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The link to that tweet is dead now, but I found an archived version for posterity. One example I can think of personally for outdated language is the fact that this template uses "pairing" in the first place, since at least IME that term has fallen out of popular use in favour of "ship" over the 20ish years I've been in fandom. "Ship" does also have the benefit of not assuming the relationship in question only involves two people. I'd be in favour of moving this to something like Template:ShipProfile and maybe just taking out the gendered category examples entirely. (As a fellow nonbinary person, it does grate a bit to me in 2023 to see a list of examples that all assume the characters in question must be either male or female, though I don't know of any specific category terms that are used to refer to ships involving nonbinary characters either.) Malcontent (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Automatic category additions

Doing |category=Slash should ideally categorize a page into Category:Slash Pairings. However, it doesn't. This would be easy to correct with some simple code additions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)