Template talk:Close relationships

Types: Sexual
In the section "Types" the sub-section "sexual" is different in style than the other sub-sections ("Genetic", "By marriage", "Partner · Partners") somebody should fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for list
Please add articles in alphabetical order. This template is intended to list Wikipedia articles dealing with various forms and aspects of contemporary relationships. The idea is for readers to quickly find information about their own current relationships. Articles listed in the template should fall into the following categories:
 * types of close relationships (e.g., friendship, family, marriage)
 * forms of marriage (e.g., monogamy, polygamy, polandry, polygyny)
 * alternative forms of close relationships (e.g., polyamory, swinging, open marriage)
 * positive aspects of close relationships (e.g., attachment, bonding, love, sexuality)
 * negative aspects of close relationships (e.g., rape, domestic violence, jealousy)
 * endings of close relationships (e.g., separation, divorce, widowhood).

I don't particularly like the template. If you're telling us which subjects to place words under, we should be telling the Wikipedia user which subjects those things are listed under. Otherwise, they'll be as confused and disgusted as the rest of us. So, we can, maybe, make the Close Relationship box a tad larger and put in the different subjects, bolded, possibly underlined. That way, the user does not believe that "Rape" or "Pedophilia" are considered "Close Relationships," and instead sees them as "Negative aspects of close relationships." However, rape and pedophilia, in my opinion, do not belong in any of the categories that you have listed. New subject names can be easily thought up, so that is not much of a problem.

--Knightskye 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Brideservice, Bride price, Dowry
I removed Brideservice, Bride price and Dowry because these articles talked about the phenomena as historical traditions, with little or no information about the practice in contemporary relationships. This template is intended to list Wikipedia articles dealing with various forms and aspects of contemporary relationships. The idea is for readers to quickly find information about their own current relationships.
 * I replaced Brideservice, Bride price and Dowry contrary to User:Kc62301 claims that, “these articles talked about the phenomena as historical traditions, with little or no information about the practice in contemporary relationships.” A brief perusal of the globe--not to mention a review of the voluminous ethnographic literature on these topics--demonstrates the vitality of these forms of contemporary relationships, which shape the lives of literally millions of inhabitants of the globe. While I commend User:Kc62301 for stating that “[t]his template is intended to list Wikipedia articles dealing with various forms and aspects of contemporary relationships,” I vigorously challenge the assumption that these modes of human alliance (Brideservice, Bride price and Dowry) are not contemporary forms of marriage. Moreover, User:Kc62301 states that “the idea [for the template] is for readers to quickly find information about their own current relationships.” Why then “freeze-frame” humans who practice these forms of close relationships, much like other marriage categories listed in the Close Relationships template, such as polygamy, polyandry, polygyny? Moving beyond our ethnocentrism is a positive path to fully comprehending the amazing human diversity in contemporary close relationships, and in turn will enhance our capacity--in the words of User:Kc62301 to “find information about [our] own current relationships.” User:Bdean1963
 * Edit wars? I am for keeping the above in, adding Arranged marriage and removing polygamy, polyandry, polygyny since they will come up in Nonmonogamy. But brideservice is not going to come up in another list. So who empied the Template of content?--Ziji 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

awesome template
good work everyone!Spencerk 02:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

side template or bottom template?
Can this template be converted to a bottom template rather than a side template? Many of the articles that this template appears on also include other side templates, and they are becoming rather cluttered. See homosexuality for example. Kaldari 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution and rape?
I think they are off-topic and should be remove from the template. Andries 20:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear whether these are meant to be consensual, positive connections or just all the connections which are possible. If that can be answered, the question of rape (which made me raise my eyebrow) and the like will be answered Euchrid 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Close Relationships" List
Why is paedophelia, incest, rape and violence listed in there? None of those are "close relationships." That's for removal, but I'm sure there's probably some I missed that should be taken out. I do have a suggestion for addition, however. I think "infatuation" should be included, considering "limerence" is on the list, even though limerence is a feeling and not a relationship. Perhaps another list should be created entirely, and be made up of the types of feelings of attraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs)
 * Well, incest can be considered a "close relationship" if the two consulting adults both love each other.(NOTE: I AM NO WHERE NEAR SUPPORTING OR GOING AGAINST "INCEST") rape and paedophelia should be removed. Because I doubt you'd force some child or someone else into have sex if you "love" them. Infatuation shouldn't be included (since there is no article for it, just a disambig.) Prostitution should also be removed. UnDeRsCoRe 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think rape should be added to the list again. One of the requirements are negative aspects of close relationships, and the majority of rapes are committed by people known to the victim, it says that in the rape article. abexy 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rape is abuse and when in a close relationship is one of many forms of relational aggression SO keep Rape out (as too limited) and I will put Relational aggression in but just as usefully one could put Relationship abuse there instead of Relational aggression, directly meeting the Template:Abuse, which links to related topics like child prostitution and incest, dating violence and elder abuse to name but a few.--Ziji 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it for a week I do prefer Relationship abuse to the current relational agression link as the latter is too limited as well. So I have changed the template accordingly, which then links to all forms of abuse, the majority of which occur in relationship.--Ziji 10:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia
I removed pedophilia because by its very definition it's a fetish, hence the "philia" ending. If someone wants to enter "Child-love" or whatever term is used for those relationships now a days that would seem to me to be more along the guidelines, however if we included every fetish it would make for a very long list now wouldn't it? 76.185.10.76 08:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.227.48 (talk • contribs)

Reformat
Apologies in advance if this broke one of the pages which includes the template. I'm looking for them now, hoping to fix any problems. Feel free to bring problems to my attention! Sdsds 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now checked each of the 49 pages that transclude this template. I didn't find any where the reformatting "broke" the page layout badly. Many (as hoped) seem somewhat improved. Others were ... at least ... unhurt. Again, apologies if I missed something. I try to be WP:BOLD, but not reckless. Nonetheless if you feel a need to revert this change, I'll understand! Sdsds 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It used to look like a tapeworm, this is much improved, thank you. Haiduc 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Infidelity?
I don't understand why infidelity has been added to the template. Into which of the categories listed at the top of this page does infidelity fall? Sdsds 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Infidelity is a type of close relationship, often maintained in secret for many years alongside a marriage and sometimes in support of it. Indfidelity also fits into alternative forms of close relationships and it is a negative aspect of close relationships and is involved in many of the endings of first time marriages (some authorities put it as high as 90% of first time divorces). Infidelity is the broad category of which Adultery and Affair are subsets. Affair is now redundant but I didn't want to delete it without discussion adn I intend to merge the contents of Affair into Infeidleity at a later stage.--Ziji 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing this viewpoint! We agree that an affair is a close relationship. But... infidelity and affair are orthogonal concepts. A couple can have an affair even when neither is married. The only implications of affair are that the liason is likely temporary, and possibly clandestine. Infidelities may also be temporary and clandestine, but they require that at least one of the people involved is married (or otherwise exclusively committed) to someone else. Finally, not all infidelities are close relationships! An infidelity can be a "one night stand" encounter with a stranger. Do you have sources you can cite that support your view? Have you reached concensus about this with other editors of the articles on infidelity, affair, and adultery? Sdsds 06:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing. I'm sure you'll do what is best for the template without further input from me. I'm a bit occupied writing on the affair and re-creating the infidelity sections at the moment.--Ziji 10:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You will notice I have added Psychology of Monogamy and Nonmonogamy. Nonmonogamy is an excellent list with brief descriptors, containing Polygamy, Polygyny, Polyandry, Infidelity, Swinging and more. You could simplify the template list by removal of some of those.--Ziji 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rmove reundancies
If one relies on the nonmonogamy link then the following items currently on Close Relationship become redundant - open marriage, polyamory, polyandry, polygamy, polygyny and swinging. Following sdsds I have removed those as well.--Ziji 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Having added relationship abuse I think incest can now be removed as it is pointed to on the page linked at abuse. Please feel free to undo that change but give a reason here.--Ziji 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy is not always a bad thing. The idea of the list is to help readers quickly find what they want to learn about. If they want to read about open marriage, it is much friendlier for the reader to see "open marriage" linked than to require the reader to guess which of the other links might have something about open marriage.

Bisexuality?
I know it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction to put bisexuality on a list with heterosexuality and homosexuality, but does bisexuality describe a type of relationship? The majority of sexual or romantic relationships among or involving bisexuals could be described as "heterosexual" or "homosexual"; the exceptions are those involving intersex people and those involving more than two people, but I still doubt such a word would be used to describe it. I'm removing the item pending formal argument. Twin Bird 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Casual relationship
I have been wikifying casual relationship and wondering if it is ready for inclusion in the template. Office romance, now wikified is in the template and I had no doubt about the relevance of that given the incidence of it (47% in one survey). But I'm not sure about the casual relationship article. Please have a look at the article, improve it as you wish, comment here and add to template if you think it fits.-- Ziji  ( talk   email ) 09:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Engagement
if Marriage belongs, so does Engagement Also the formatting sucks. Is there no way to simply define the width of the box and do away with the line breaks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.180.206 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about the Engagement part! I was quite disappointed that neither Engagement nor Fiance(e) were on the list when I looked at it now. Especially since things like Concubinage are there! Hiccup42 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Using template:nowrap begin syntax
editprotected Please update this template to use the nowrap begin syntax. This can be done by a copy/paste from here. This is an uncontroversial change; no substantive changes have been made, just formatting. (sdsds - talk) 03:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.&mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi. Please replace the template's current code with the following, which does not alter its contents, only its formatting. Among other more minor amendments, the image size is increased to near the width of the template (so is easier to see) and its background now matches that used for the list of links; the spacing between dividers is corrected and hanging dividers have been removed; and the documentation now appears beside the template rather than below it (and out of sight in smaller windows/screens). Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)




 * ✅ L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 04:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this template protected??
???? I want to edit it. Please open it to registereds. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem anymore. Fresheneesz (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mating out of order?
why is mating out of alphabetical order? Ahailes (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this template exist?
There is no article on "close relationships"; it doesn't even redirect anywhere. So there's no way for anyone to verify any of the content in this template, e.g., by checking via sources that we aren't doing original research in ruling on which interpersonal relationships are or aren't "close" ones. For example, we have apparently decided, on our own, that rape, incest, and arranged marriages are not "close," but that casual relationships, courtesans, child abuse, spousal abuse, elder abuse, teen dating violence, and of course divorce, infidelity (listed three times for some reason??), relationship breakup, and separation are "close." This in addition to the obvious fact that "close" is a vague, relative, and colloquial designation for a relationship. (It is also a little bit bizarre for an encyclopedia to rule by fiat that "close relationships" can only be contemporary, modern ones, whereas in most cases we don't automatically differentiate modern and historical practices.)

My current recommendation is: First, have a top-level template for Interpersonal relationships, linking only to the most broad and crucial articles on the subject, and used only on top-level articles like friendship. This will eliminate the ambiguity of 'close relationship', and allow significant articles to be added to the fold which have currently fallen through the cracks.

Second, have two templates, Kin relationships and Romantic relationships (or something of the kind), used instead of the top-level "Interpersonal" template for articles like sibling (for 'kin') or significant other (for 'romantic'). (Obviously, incest and perhaps one or two other articles can be cross-listed on both of these sub-templates if desired, but there will be surprisingly little redundancy since most of the articles only directly apply to one listing or the other.) I don't think sub-templates on things like 'friendship' or 'business relationships' will be needed, simply because there are far fewer articles covering those topics than covering kinship or sexual/romantic relations. It will be enough to list those articles, when they're significant enough to qualify, on the 'Interpersonal' template. -Silence (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Vector image replacment
I'm was bold, and changed the header image into its new vector version, there being virtually no difference between the two. Oliver beatson .talk  .cont  02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Close relatonships and abuse
i have just revamped Abuse into a proper article and there is also Template:Abuse. There is an overlap between ths template and abuse. I am not sure what the best way is of handling this but for starters i think i am justified in putting in a link to Abuse on this template. --Penbat (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rape is an action, not a relationship
Rape is an action, not a relationship of any kind, and it is not exclusively (in fact its motivation is rarely) "an aspect of" close relationships, so it does not meet the current inclusion criteria. I'm therefore very pleased to see it has been removed from the template (although I would have been even more pleased if that eventual removal had been discussed and agreed or at least documented on this Talk page, especially after so much previous discussion about it.)

For similar reasons, I suggest the whole section "Relationship abuse" be removed, as the first four current entries (Child abuse, Elder abuse, Dating abuse and Infidelity) are far from exclusively aspects of close relationships. Also, this list is arbitrary - there are many other ways people abuse relationships: financially, psychologically, emotionally, physically, The only other current entry, "Spousal abuse", doesn't meet the current criteria because there is no WP article by that name - it redirects to "Domestic violence".

However, also please see my comments in the next section, "Template documentation issues". Thanks, Bricaniwi (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Template documentation issues
1. The current headings in the template are very different from those in the documentation. Assuming the current actual headings are agreed, surely the /doc should be updated to reflect them as a valid guide for newcomers seeing the template for the first time and wondering what it's about. If this is agreed, who is best to do this please?

2. The Template:Close relationships/doc page is missing most of the elements listed in Template documentation. As asked above, why does this template exist? I agree it's very helpful, and better like this than a long "See also" section, but it's the first like this that I've noticed. Usually there is a "Portal" box or an "InfoBox". Where should it be added to articles, which articles, and how?

3. Why is this restricted to contemporary relationships? Why exclude historic and proposed ones? And why restrict its helpfulness only to people interested in their own current relationships - what if they're interested in other people's, and past and future relationships too? Seriously.

Discussion? Thanks, Bricaniwi (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add skills link to the Activities section
How about adding skills to the end of the Activities section? If no objections in 7 days, then I'll add it. Thanks. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No objections in 12 days, so adding the skills link, as proposed above. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs 23:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014
Please add the line below the line  so that the collapsible-lists option can work (as advertised by the documentation).
 * expanded =

Thank you,

213.246.85.251 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Funandtrvl (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018
If imagelink isn't specified then clicking on topimage should go to that image's description page. As it stands now, you always have that bare "link=", which results in a non-clickable image. Changing the topimage field to this should fix that.
 * topimage =

Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 17:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hang on I can make this change myself, woops. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 17:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor change icon
Please replace the icon with File:together.png, it's the same picture but without a ghostly white glow. Or fix the svg. 84.253.244.62 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Þjarkur (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Þjarkur! Much prettier. 84.253.244.62 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the SVG has been fixed at my request so I put it back. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Partners section
If the first two sections dictate HOW the relevant relationships are formed why does the third suddenly state a common term for relationships formed by choice and not by choice? The sub-section Sexual also covers a lot of relationship types and structures that aren't inherently sexual in nature, those should be moved out of that sub-section or the sub-section should be removed entirely. the relevant ones are: Polyamory, monogamy, non-monogamy, mutual monogamy, and polyfidelity. Honema (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Close relationships" or "Relationships"?
The name of the template is "Close relationships". However, the title is "Relationships" with an Outline of relationships as sub-title below; the type of relationships described are all close relationships. I feel there is a lack of harmony between the name of the template, its title and sub-title, and the majority of the content in the template. Veverve (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)