Template talk:Rights

Scope creep
This template seems to be getting filled up with articles that are not about rights per se. I'm wondering if we should have some kind of clearer criteria for what exactly should and shouldn't be included in this template? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Change from Men to Men inside the source please -- VladG145 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Detailed changes from VladG145
Change from Men to Men please, because that way we can be directed into the men's rights sections of the category inside the rights template in a consistent manner whenever we click "Men" since it's the "Men's rights movement" that offers men's rights that people look for in the category, just like how the category of the rights template direct you to women's rights when you click "Women" inside the category VladG145 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this because the men's rights movement is a very specific and controversial movement, that is largely anti-feminist. The men's movement includes the men's rights movement, but also covers pro-feminist men's advocacy movements and generally is the umbrella for all advocacy for men, and is thus the more neutral option for the linked-to article. PBZE (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)