Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Furry fandom?

I don't know if this is the right place for this comment but can someone please clarify how the furry fandom wikipedia article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT+ studies? I understand that a larger percentage of the group identify as LGBT+ compared to the general population yet I am pretty sure people are furries regardless of gender or orientation. The disproportionate representation may simply be due to fewer inhibitions expressing sexual orientation/gender predispositions among members and is indicative that the general population has a higher percentage of LGBT+ members than is currently disclosed. Heterosexual members of the furry fandom are not part of the LGBT+ community. This is a cultural subgroup and not a LGBT+ or gender/sexual orientation subgroup. Drocj (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The standard I usually apply when reviewing additions to or removals from the project's scope (which show up on Wikipedia:LGBT/Quality) is whether the article has a substantial amount of text that is about LGBTQ+ topics. Ordinarily, I would look for a paragraph or more that is relevant (other than for people, as all LGBTQ+ people are in scope by definition). In this case, the relevant content appears to be a single sentence, so I wouldn't oppose removing it from the project's scope.--Trystan (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The only relevant line currently in the article is a statistic (10% genderqueer?) in a long list of similar statistics (ethnicity, religion, etc). I do think the article should probably have more text dedicated to its intersectional communities: the relation between furries and LGBT is long and interesting. Regardless, the other basis to add an article to a WikiProject is simply based on the general interest of the editors. This is not a public-facing thing: if many LGBT-focused editors are interested in how a semi-related community is written about, then that's fine. It also seems fair to me to remove the tag if there's no relevant text in the article, tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay sorry for reverting my pervious comments they were honestly a bit lazy.

I do want to to throw this out there, the current version of article on the furry fandom is pretty dated and needs a lot of updating.

I should also mention there are a lot of wikipedia articles and sources on the topic that do show a connection between the furry fandom and the LGBT community.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. I mean Helluva Boss, which has a heck ton of LGBTQ+ characters, got a Ursa Major Award (which relates to "furry media, such as video, written works, and comics.") three years in a row, and there are certainly MORE awards than just "Best Anthropomorphic Comic Strip" which we have listed on here, as they have a "Best Dramatic Series" award (there's no page for it yet, but... presently the "Best Dramatic Series" have been awarded to the Helluva Boss episodes "Murder Family", "Loo Loo Land", and "The Circus", along with Beastars, BNA: Brand New Animal, Centaurworld, Aggretsuko, Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, and Odd Taxi. I don't think Beastars, BNA, Odd Taxi, or Aggretsuko had LGBTQ+ characters, but since Helluva Boss and Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts did, and I think Centaurworld did (since it got some GLAAD award nominations), perhaps that can be added in to the Furry fandom page as well. I added in some sentences to the "Websites and online communities" section, with this edit, which incorporates what I said in this paragraph.

I did a search and only found the following mentions on the page (prior to my edit), showing it NEEDS to be updated:

In 2021 and 2022, media coverage in Canada and the United States focused on false rumors about litter boxes in schools being provided for furries, which was part of a cultural backlash amplified by conservative and far-right politicians against transgender accommodations in schools...While only 2% of furries identified themselves as transgender, 10% of furries identified themselves as genderqueer/non-binary."

Perhaps some of the articles on Google Scholar, JSTOR, or elsewhere could help expand the page's connection to this project. Historyday01 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters" at AfD

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters has been nominated for deletion, with the discussion here. This page, about a proposed animated series of this name, was previously listed for Wiki Loves Pride in 2021 and 2022. This discussion may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fictosexuality#Requested move 13 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fictosexuality#Requested move 13 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

List of non-binary people nominated for deletion

I would appreciate thoughtful comments and opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with non-binary gender identities. Thank you! Nosferattus (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT in the United States (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT in the United States (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Britta Curl and trans topics discussion

A discussion about appropriate phrasing and "neutrality" as they relate to transphobia and transgender people is currently occurring at Talk:Britta Curl. The guidance of one or more editors experienced in navigating these topics would be most appreciated, as things seem to be going a bit off the rails.

For context: Britta Curl is an ice hockey player who was recently drafted into to Professional Women's Hockey League. Her selection has been somewhat controversial within the fanbase due to her history of liking and sharing content with conservative views, especially things broadly interpreted as transphobic and trans-exclusionary, on social media platforms. Spitzmauskc (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Seconding that this section is painful to read, but I'm not brave enough to wade into whatever is happening on the talk page. Is anyone more experienced able to do so? Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sophie (musician)

There's a discussion happening at Talk:Sophie (musician)#Pronouns again that's relevant to this project. The subject of the article was transgender, and editors are revisiting the question of whether the article should use she/her pronouns or avoid third-person pronouns. hinnk (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Article needed: Les Veilleurs

French Wikipedia has an article on Les Veilleurs  (lit. 'Watchers'; or 'Sentinels') which is a French conservative movement with anti-lgbt goals similar to La Manif pour Tous. It's definitely a notable topic, and we ought to have an article on it. The French article is well sourced, and appears to be well organized and written. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I do see that either the redirect should be deleted or the organization should be described in the article it currently redirects to. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

LGBT-relatedness of a film

In the process of trying to update List of LGBT-related films of 2024 with the films that screened in the past couple of weeks at the Frameline Film Festival, I came across Good One, where the article has already existed for several months but had not been categorized or listed as an LGBT-related film, and I also could not find any sources whatsoever to clarify the matter — so I asked on the talk page, and another editor located a source that passingly states that the protagonist identifies as queer, but otherwise continues to reflect the same lack of evidence that her queerness is particularly central to the main plot.

So I'm of two minds: to me, personally, the fact that a lead character in the film is queer should be enough to warrant categorizing it as an LGBT-related film (queerfolk don't only want to see films where queerness is the drama per se, and do want to also see films in which queer people are just present in the world too), but I can easily see somebody reverting me on the grounds that it isn't "LGBT-related" enough to be defined by that if I tried to add the category myself. It would be much more clearcut that it wasn't particularly significant if a minor character's LGBTQ identity was passingly mentioned without being central to the storyline, but if it's the lead character it's obviously a harder call.

So I wanted to ask for some other opinions as well: if the central character's queerness is mentioned, but the film isn't particularly about her queerness per se, then should it be categorized as LGBT-related or not? Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to lean toward "no"; if it were a film that was about them queering about queerily, sure. If review sources and analysis are focusing on that aspect, sure. But if it isn't central, it's just a personal attribute, then yay for inclusion but it doesn't need to be on the list/in the category any more than a film where someone mentions having met someone at church would be "Christian-related film". It's not a defining aspect of the film, which is what we expect for categories. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor was able to find a source that had not turned up for me, which provided significantly greater context than just passingly mentioned it. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say it depends, because a category with a name like "LGBT-related films" would not at all be the same if a lead character is queer but that fact plays no role in the film. Was Star Trek an "African American-related TV series" because Lt. Uhura was in it? I would say no. But if the category was, "Series with African-American actors", then I would say yes. The word related is a weak copula, and can mean different things to different people; hence the "it depends". If you change -related to something more specific, like -themed, then it becomes clearer whether an article belongs in that category, or at least, the gray area is narrower, and Star Trek (as a series) definitely does not belong in -themed (though a few individual episodes might). I'm not familiar with the Good One so wouldn't know how to make the call on that one. And per what you said about people also wanting to see films where queer people are not central but just present, there's nothing wrong with categorizing some film articles with both "LGBT-themed..." and "Films with LGBT characters" (let's say, or whatever the real categories are called) and other film articles with only the latter category but not the former. Would that work for you? Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to make a nerd objection. Of course Star Trek was not an "African American-related TV series" because Lt. Uhura was in it. Uhura was not African-American. She was from the United States of Africa. She was an African-African. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft biography for V Pappas

Similar to above, I have also submitted Draft:V Pappas for editor review at Articles for Creation as part of my work at Beutler Ink. V Pappas is also known as Vanessa Pappas and their name is red-linked at 50 Most Influential (Bloomberg ranking). Sharing a notice here in case any project participants are interested in reviewing. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Gay Women's Alliance

Hello! I've been picking away at Draft: Gay Women's Alliance and I'm looking for help to find reliable secondary sources to meet WP:NOTE. Wormbug (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to it, but another Atkins source is this: Atkins, Gary L. (Summer 2009). "A Women's Place". Columbia: The Magazine of Northwest History. Vol. 23, no. 2. pp. 22–27. There are many sources of questionable reliability in Gale's Archives of Sexuality and Gender, including several issues of Pandora, but aren't great to establish notability.

I have two thoughts. First is that, like many contemporary LGBT organizations, sources which best establish notability are fragmentary, widely dispersed, rarely digitized, and sometimes not held by any libraries (or if they are, do not circulate as ILL since they're not microfilmed). I've had to purchase dozens of newspapers from various sellers to track down similar information from the gay 70s. Second is that, if we're unable to prove notability, the Gay Women's Alliance can become the background section of the more notable, redlinked Lesbian Resource Center, which is exceptionally well-documented in digitized newspapers such as Seattle Gay News (2001).

Pinging S0091 since they offered on the draft to help with finding sources. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Urve (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft biography for Duncan Crabtree-Ireland

Resolved

Hello! On behalf of SAG-AFTRA, I have submitted Draft:Duncan Crabtree-Ireland for editor review at Articles for Creation as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject LGBT studies participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been reviewed. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion on Passing (gender) article

I've been trying to fix up the issues on the passing (gender) article since it is tagged with multiple issues and was kind of a mess. I tried to fix some of the more obvious things like adding sources to unsourced info, removing fake sources and self-published stuff like personal blogs, and removing some weasel words. Since this is my first time doing a major clean up on an article, I was wondering if another editor could maybe look over it and let me know if it's ready to have the multiple issues tag removed and what else there is to correct if not. I'm particularly having trouble understanding how to best make the article cohesive. Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Juno Dawson and This Book Is Gay

Hello. I wanted to make the project aware of recent activity at Juno Dawson and This Book Is Gay, and give other editors the chance to look at these pages and judge if MOS:GENDERID is being applied fairly. Thank you. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include her former name in the Juno Dawson article since it seems the book had been published with her birth name at some point and her work is described with some older news articles with that name, so I would say she was notable under that former name. I wouldn't put it in the "This Book is Gay" article though if it's not relevant to the book itself.Urchincrawler (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Bi-inclusive terms

The term "coupled lesbians" appears in several articles related to pregnancy. This phrase seems overly narrow, but I'm not sure what to change it to. Is "lesbian couples" appropriate? Jruderman (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to lean on "female couples" as an inclusive term (unless sexual activity is specifically involved.) It's not just a bisexual matter; coupled asexuals may also wish to form families. (However, take care to check the source; it may specifically refer to coupled lesbians.)-- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

NatGertler, Jruderman sapphic/sapphism? --MikutoH ^talk! 22:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

My instinct with sapphic is that while technically the definition does not require romantic/sexual attraction, that is not the common understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess my concern with sapphic would be with bisexual men there's no commonly used equivalent. (The male equivalent is Achillean but a layperson reading Wikipedia probably wouldn't know what that means.) I think female couples and male couples would be easier to understand, but my only issue is if it can cause confusion between whether you female sex or female gender. If you're including same-gender couples where one or both partners could be transgender, than female and male might be confusing as those words are often associated with sex rather than gender. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

List of LGBT-related acronyms

I just started this list. Did it exist before? Because I couldn't find. There are probably more acronyms missing, but I think these were enough for a start. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

MikutoH, it's well sourced, so thanks very much for that. The main problems I see with it are overlap, indiscriminate content, and a possible title issue involving selection criteria.

• There is considerable overlap with the LGBT article, which I believe includes most of these terms, although it might make sense to have this article for the ones that aren't , and especially if there were other acronyms that are not tied to the term LGBT itself.
• Wikipedia is not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information, and do we really need to know about LGBTQQICAPF2K+ or MOGAI just because somebody, somewhere, mentioned it an article at some point? We shouldn't underestimate the number of people coining something or mentioning a coinage hoping to get a hit in Wikipedia, which would enormously boost their PageRank on the web. A legitimate acronym that has some sustainability or widespread usage, sure; but not something that is just a vogue word in a limited time or place. These are judgment calls, and list articles generally have more leeway on this sort of thing than at topic article, but still there is a limit somewhere.
• As for the title, what do you mean by -related? It's kind of vague term to use in a title, and could mean different things to different people. (This same question comes up in a different discussion; see § LGBT-relatedness of a film below.) Do you mean only terms related to the adjective LGBT, so all the extensions and forms of the term LGBT, but not other things? This question has to do with defining your selection criteria for the list of items that are to be included. For example, could your list also include LGBT organizations that have acronyms for their name, or part of it, like HRC, GLAAD, PFLAG, NCTE, ACLU LGBT Project, GSA?

I think attention to these issues will help define and improve it if you want to keep it separate from the LGBT article. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for giving some feedback, Mathglot. I asked for opinions on the title scope in Talk:List of LGBT-related acronyms because of the relatedness.

• For me, it could include acronyms such as GSA, which reminds GLA. In fact, I included GSA, but Raladic removed it. SAGA, for example, is used for both GSA and LGBT community concepts. It could be renamed to "...related to the LGBT community".
• I agree that LGBTQQICAPF2K+ was a disparate, but some legit adopted it, and it's verified by the cited sources along with searchable nonciteds. And it's the most known acronym that include K for kinks, which many put in the acronym. Though LGBTQIAPK+, LGBTQIAPD+, or some similar would fit better in this article; while for MOGAI, it's mentioned in the LGBT article. I agree that including such acronyms would open the Pandora's box to strange and extremely unusual acronyms or variants. But I avoided many and many other acronyms I know because they don't even have usage in scholar articles.
• The overlap was already debated in the talk page but there were disagreements as well in that discussion.

In fact, I'd want to list verifiable (with reliable sources) letters, and adjacent acronym variants, that are put in the LGBT acronym, that's why I didn't repeat them in the article. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your answer about the title seemed tautological to me, and didn't really answer the question. As I said, the term -related is a very weak connector, and makes it harder to know what the selection criteria are, which should be specified in the article; see WP:SELCRIT. This is an unusual situation, as I can't offhand think of another term which has had so many variants proposed, and it may not be obvious how to determine what should be included.

For example, if some university group creates a new LGBT organization with a new, long acronym of LGBTQQIAPNDK3G+ with '3G' standing for "third gender", maybe because they want to "get on the map" by having some local newspaper report on it, and then bootstrap that published news account into an appearance on Wikipedia, do we include it? Inclusion in a list article has a lower bar than creation of a new article, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE argues against including everything that exists if it has no encyclopedic value. So, where do we draw the line?

Our WP:NEOLOGISM policy links to the policy for inclusion of a neologism at Wiktionary, which is this:

clearly widespread use, or use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year

That is how Wiktionary decides inclusion of terms as standalone articles, and since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that would not suffice for creating an article about a term here, but it seems like a reasonable criterion for inclusion of a neologism in a list article like this one. However, that is just my opinion, and we don't have a guideline about this, as far as I know, because I don't think this situation of very many alternate names comes up often enough to have a whole list article naming all the variants. (But look at how they do things at articles like Names of God, or Names of Japan, which are not list articles, but deal with the issue of multiple names and having to source them.) Somewhere, there is a line or threshold of weak or few citations, below which we should not include a term that is attested, but only barely, but I can't define that line; that should be up to consensus, in my opinion. How do you feel about the three independent citations over a year idea?

Another issue is whether this article is about English acronyms, since this is English Wikipedia, or about all acronyms in every language? I am not sure that the latter would be a legitimate topic for a list article, unless that topic itself is notable, meaning that there are secondary sources that discuss variants of LGBT in multiple languages all in one source, to avoid the problem of WP:SYNTH. If it is only about English acronyms, I think that is easier to defend, but then some entries only have citations in another languages, like LGBTTT; I can't find anything for it in English at all; do we include that because it has been seen in Brazilian Portuguese, even if it hasn't in English? Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So you believe the title isn't the only problem, it's also the content that needs fixing? I accept improvements from other editors, feel free to got that boldly. If you have a better suggestion for the title, I can move it if I agree. --MikutoH ^talk! 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

MikutoH, if you hit the Subscribe link upper right of this section, you will get notified automatically when someone responds here, even if they don't ping you or wikilink your username. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I was already subscribed. --MikutoH ^talk! 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I added some acronyms to help flesh out the page more. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Korbin Albert

Korbin Albert had liked some allegedly homophobic/transphobic social media posts for which she apologized, and has subsequently been booed during US national team games [1] [2]. This has been covered in significant, independent, reliable sources. However, the Korbin Albert Wikipedia page currently describes this in a way that almost makes it seem as if nothing at all was homophobic/transphobic. I would like someone from this Wiki Project to take a look and ensure that section is written from a neutral point of view. Joeykai (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

wow! That was both way too long and also misleading. I've attempted to clean it up a bit, although now the section seems to need more so it's not just a "controversy" section Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Should the section about it be called 'personal life'? It's part of her personal life sure, but when it's the only thing in that section it's kind of odd. I assume her personal life does not revolve around reposting homophobic/transphobic Tik Toks. Urchincrawler (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to improve the LGBT_speculative_fiction category lists

Hi, I just added suggestions for a couple of useful new subcategories to Category_talk:LGBT_speculative_fiction - I just wanted to make sure somebody sees this.

(I'm currently researching queer representation in geeky genres for an annotated recommendations list over on IMDb, so I have a list and I'm perfectly happy to put in the time to add the category tags to the individual media pages. But I don't know how to create subcategories - and in any case, that shouldn't be done by an outsider, I think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:1ed0:3500:4886:ec7d:a008:e793 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Warsaw Gay Movement

Hi!

I translated the article from Polish Wikipedia into English one (it was longer and more detailed). Two things:

1. Could somebody check my grammar, spelling and vocab? English is a foreign language for me. 2. Can we change the name of the article from Warsaw Gay Movement into Warsaw Homosexual Movement?

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Warsaw Homosexual Movement. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gender variance#Requested move 12 July 2024

The discussion is here. So far there's only 1 comment so if any of you want to discuss this please do so. Urchincrawler (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cisgender drag performers?

Would Category:Cisgender drag performers be an appropriate category? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I support it. though it may open the door/make a room for other categories such as Category:Cisgender LGBT people, and Category:Transgender heterosexual people (plus Category:LGBT heterosexual people/Category:Straight LGBT people).

Also, would that category include cis AFAB queens or only drag queens who are cis men? --MikutoH ^talk! 22:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Gay or Lesbian

Hello. Would you please comment on Talk:Sonya Deville#Gay or lesbian (again)? It is about professional wrestler Sonya Deville and her identity; e.g. calling her gay or gay female wrong (based on sources)? Thanks for the help and sharing your comments. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Queer.pl

Dear Friends.

I just translated article about Queer.pl from Polish into English. As usually, English is not my native language - can somebody view the article's language, pretty please? ;-)

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi I just read through it and I'm a bit confused about this sentence: "The website supports events such as pride parades in Warsaw and Kraków and participates in public debate about topics such as civil partnership, coming out and outing."

How does a website participate in public debate? Does it host public debates on their site, or are the people who run it debating these issues? Urchincrawler (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Intersex and Intersex and LGBT

The discussion is here. It currently only has one comment, may of interest to members of this WikiProject. I look forward to your thoughts there. Historyday01 (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Beira's Place

It feels like this wildly anti-trans project of Rowling's has rather glowing coverage on wiki (I think it also has a brief discussion in J. K. Rowling) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 01:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merger

A merger of List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004 and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2005–2009 has been proposed. If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please add your comments at Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004#Merge proposal. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

Does the members of WikiProject LGBT studies think that the article about Imane Khelif is within the scope of this Wikiproject?--Trade (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No. She is not publicly L, G, B, or T. Funcrunch (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that Khelif is a cisgender endosex woman, the harassment campaign against her feels like a queer studies topic, given its obvious transphobic and interphobic motivations, and being propagated (at least in the west) by prominent TERFs and transvestigators. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Put more practically, it is an article that members of this project would be interested in watching and contributing to. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough most people in her home country seems to be defending her. Said campaign is pretty much just a Western thing Trade (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems so. But, yes, I think it would be a good topic for members of this project to contribute to. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer support this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but I am concerned that tagging her article with the WikiProject LGBT studies category would imply to most readers that we are considering her to be a member of the LGBT community. Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that raising the issue here on the talk page has drawn sufficient attention from active project members, making the tagging unnecessary for immediate attention, and that the issue of so-tagging might be seen the same as putting her in an LGBT category is sufficient for us to say "we don't need to tag this time". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the other straight cisgendered people be disallowed from tagging then? Otherwise it just feels a bit arbitrary Trade (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Or perhaps a case of context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If Ex-Senator Brenda Goldstarstraight who wrote the Federal "Gay is Cool" amendment and is now the host of the lesbian debate program Dykotomy gets tagged like that, well, she is someone who has chosen to associate herself with the LGBT grouping. Such is not the same for Khelif, who as far as I can tell has done nothing to associate herself with LGBT, it is merely something that has been weaponized against her. And as I said, Khelif is now someone who has been brought up in discussion on this board, so she doesn't need that tagging merely to draw the attention of this project's editors. So no, my statement is not a one-size-fits-all statement, it is directed at this very specific question, and not arbitrarily so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people from 2010. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes it very broad in terms of the ability to add WikiProject tags to biographies of living people. Historyday01 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My default assumption is that most readers don't look at the talkpage, but your point may have some merit in a wider sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "most editors". Funcrunch (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Then it gets more murky, but I hope most editors would see a difference between a WikiProject talkpage banner and an article category. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, to the majority of readers, tagging her talk page as a subject of interest to an LGBT Wikiproject is the same thing as saying she is LGBT when she is not identified as such. BLP concerns override the desires of a few members of a Wikiproject especially since it isn't a consensus here that this article should be tagged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

to the majority of readers, tagging her talk page as a subject of interest to an LGBT Wikiproject is the same thing as saying she is LGBT when she is not identified as such--evidently this is the case based on people's replies in the ANI thread, although for the life of me I can't understand why people are reading it this way. It's WikiProject LGBT studies for a reason, a field which covers all questions of how individuals and societies relate to gender and sexual diversity, including how these phenomena affect non-queer people as well. A cis athlete who is attacked for her perceived transness absolutely falls within the realm of LGBT studies and is particularly an item of study precisely because she's not trans; I would expect to see papers about her treatment appear in peer-reviewed LGBT studies journals over the coming months. I understand people are justifiably taking BLP into consideration, but I feel like we are being overly accommodating to what fundamentally boils down to a failure of reading comprehension (or else an anticipated actively harmful failure of reading comprehension on the part of others) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Past consensus has always been that WP:LGBT can express interest in articles on non-LGBTQ+ individuals (eg, eg) in order to be notified of discussions, particularly where there is relevant content in the article. It is worth noting that the Wikiproject banner has been worded with exactly this concern in mind, and allows a note explaining relevance where it may be unclear (e.g., "While the subject is a cisgender woman, the article contains content of interest to the WikiProject, specifically content related to a harassment campaign falsely claiming that she is transgender.")

There would need to be a clear consensus among WikiProject participants that the subject is of interest, though.--Trystan (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we might need a note explaining relevance here. I would support the WikiProject banner being added to Khelif's page. Historyday01 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how I see it, but I may very well be in the minority. To me, "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies" says something else. But again, I don't think the majority of readers look at talkpages. Compare [3][4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies (albeit inactive, apparently) if she doesn't fit under this project Iostn (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Being discussed at WP:ANI#User is threatening to report me for simply adding relevant Wikiproject tag to talk page Doug Weller talk 15:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit off-topic, but I looked around for something to compare to. Per article-content, I think WikiProject LGBT studies would fit the talkpage of Harry Styles. Am I right or wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's different. he already said he rejects labels, so he is technically non-heterosexual.

But that's debatable, because many transphobes reject their cisness. Would they be non-cisgender? Web-julio (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There might be some model of analysis where that category's useful. The labels used by researchers and those by anyone else needn't align. Remsense诉 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that discussion has ended / been closed and now the discussion has moved to Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#WikiProject LGBT studies. I would suggest interested individuals of this WikiProject comment there if they see fit. Also, another relevant discussion, to this WikiProject, is: Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#"Prominent anti-trans figures". Not sure if there is more on that talk page of interest or not. Historyday01 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What category? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean you think the WikiProject LGBT studies template would fit on the Harry Styles talkpage, since Talk:Non-heterosexual has it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, she is not publicly LGBT. TarnishedPath^talk 23:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have proposed possible text for Imane Khelif's page regarding the present controversy. If you are interested, please weigh in below my comment which proposes the text. Thanks. Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 1#WikiProject LGBT studies.Historyday01 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: The text has been stricken, so this comment NO longer applies.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What you're proposing, for the sole purpose of advertising the interest of a handful of editors, would give UNDUE weight to the irrelevant views of those who have no say on the subject (that's not their expertise). M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to insist this comment remain, fine. I still stand by what I said: that it is inflammatory. I also suggest you restrict your discussion to Talk:Imane Khelif, as it would be more productive to all involved. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't play games with me: the fact that you removed my comment suggests some kind of ownership over this talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

LOL. I have no ownership over this page, obviously. Not at all. In fact, there are many LGBTQ discussions I don't even participate in. Sometimes I only do reversions of content to make a point about an edit. That's what I did here. That's it. While I still have my own views about your comment, I'm not going to contest your restoration of your comment. Historyday01 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement, because I believe it was too hardnosed and harsh, even though I obviously follow existing Wikipedia rules.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You can contest it all you want, but if you ever dare to redact my comments again, you'll take a trip to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. I sure hope to never cross paths with you again. I'm not sure why you are openly threatening another user on here. Yikes. Please do not ever contact me again about ANY topic. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement, as it was unnecessarily harsh.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

As a neutral party not involved in this conversation, I am commenting to make you aware of WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. I hope this helps you understand what went wrong here, and helps you avoid making similar mistakes in future. Best regards, JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that, that's very helpful. I'll save it somewhere so I remember it next time. Looking at that rule, I do think their comment isn't necessarily a "harmful post...including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism" but... I would say it is uncivil and arguably "disruptive." However, that section also states that "posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." So, their comment would fall under the latter and shouldn't have been removed. Historyday01 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Update: I no longer agree with this statement.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest you WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be "uncivil" and "disruptive" only to the degree that it disagrees with what you're aiming for, and disagreement is to be expected in a discussion. This is nowhere near a borderline case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, but I do not wish to discuss this matter any further. I will say that I will make sure to do better in the future. I'm not sure how much longer I will be on here, to be honest. I may even permanently retire by December 31st, the ways things are going. It almost seems more of a drag to do edits these days. I wish I had the energy and time that I had even a few years ago, sigh.Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for this. I updated my talk page with excerpts from that rule you mentioned and some other related ones, just to remind myself in the future, so I can refer back to it.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to just not tag her for our project. If she speaks about transphobia or intersex rights or such as a response to this, then sure, but I think it's generally just preferred not to tag someone with a WikiProject because of a harrassment campaign. Everyone here now knows this article exists too, so the article is getting plenty of attention from our project :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

According to LGBT rights in Algeria, homosexual activity in Algeria is a criminal offence. So anything on Wikipedia which suggests that Imane Khelif is L, G, or B may be a danger to her. So I strongly oppose any reference to this project being added to her article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the Imane Khelif article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I read the lead. I am not interested in boxing. What is your point, please? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is that considering the article content, a banner on the talkpage, where comparatively few readers look, in a collapsed section, saying "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies", will not increase her danger from the WP-direction. It is quite possible there are/will be people who became aware of this "thing" via WP, but the template will not be be where they notice it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The talk page section was collapsed temporarily and wouldn't remain that way. As Maplestrip said, everyone here now knows this article exists, so the article is getting plenty of attention from this project. Insisting on tagging it (for no valid reason) despite the ramifications that it could have on the life of living person makes no sense whatsoever. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The valid reason is that it's common practice to use these templates when they fit, presumably because they can bring interested attention and whatnot. I'm not insisting (and this is the wrong talkpage to insist anyway), consensus will be what it will be, but even uncollapsed, the template stating "This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies" will not increase her danger from the WP-direction.

Sure, the discussion here has brought some current attention, but it will be archived fairly soon, and the article will not have whatever potential benefits the template can bring in the longer run (I'm not too clear on what they are, tbh). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your point of view, that I happen to disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, her life is far more important than the potential interest of some editors in her. M.Bitton (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll get back to you when I've found the policy that says you can't disagree with me ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply of 14:46 above. I was and am aware that this discussion is about whether to refer to this project on the Talk page of the article. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I am opposed to having this project mentioned anywhere on that Talk page, for the reasons I have already given. I see that other editors have the same view. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a good way to put it. and what you are saying makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on BLP article

There's a discussion at Talk:Aubrey Plaza#Lead about the removal of significant information from the lead. As is categorized, the article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Input is appreciated. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane_Khelif RFC

There's an RFC concerning how Imane_Khelif genetics and gender should be referred to in the lead at Talk:Imane_Khelif#RfC_lead. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

JK Rowling RFC

There's currently an RFC at Talk:J. K. Rowling § RFC "anti-transgender activist" in the lead. Editors are invited to participate. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Improving List of people killed for being transgender

The List of people killed for being transgender page is lacking. There are zero examples before 1991, and the list is far from exhaustive. Cases in the list are also almost exclusively in the United States, and the list could use more global cases.

Ideally, I'd love to add a historical section as well -- Joan of Arc comes to mind but more clear-cut historical cases would be useful, as I think Joan's case is pretty up in the air.

When contributing, please keep in mind that the list is for cases where transness is a clear motive (even if not the only motive); unfortunately cases like Pauly Likens's don't fit the bill without clear evidence of transphobic or trans-related motive. AmityCity (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for LGBT themes in speculative fiction

LGBT themes in speculative fiction has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Drag and the Olympic Games

New page: Drag and the Olympic Games

Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 14 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT#Requested move 14 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

AfD for transgender studies researcher Cal Horton

There is an Article for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Horton of transgender studies researcher Cal Horton that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Portal talk:LGBT#Requested move 8 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Portal talk:LGBT#Requested move 8 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT community#Requested move 27 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT community#Requested move 27 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary project

The Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group has been trying to work with GLAAD on an English Wiktionary project to update the definitions of some anti-Queer slurs and conspiracy theory terms (like "transvestigation", for example).

We did have a volunteer working with GLAAD, but they're no longer able to help. Does anyone with experience of editing Wiktionary (or who is comfortable learning it) who would be interested in helping here? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Intersex healthcare draft feedback

EDIT: Nevermind, my draft passed review :D If any of you all still have feedback feel free to add it to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that there was a page of intersex-related redlinks including intersex healthcare since the intersex medical intervention page focuses mostly on intersex children. I whipped up a draft but I've never made such a hefty article from scratch so I'd appreciate feedback. Here's the draft. Thanks. P.S. feel free to add stuff if you happen to be knowledgeable about this subject. Urchincrawler (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mystique Summers Madison

I've nominated Mystique Summers Madison for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing an entry about a drag performer. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Grace Harriet Spofford

Do the members of WikiProject LGBT studies think that this article (especially the "Personal Life" section regards to her documented close friendship with Elizabeth Coulson) is within the scope of this Wikiproject? Historyday01 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Lior Shamriz

The pronouns in Lior Shamriz are inconsistent (is and they) and there is no in-article reference to the subject (Shamriz's new official website seems to use we/they). Can anyone find relevant sources, update the page content and fix the wording? Thanks, DGtal (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What are these?

Ernie Potvin 1931-1998

https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8xp7744/

https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8xp7744/entire_text/

https://www.gmcla.org/history

https://glreview.org/article/article-530/

GPA Wire Service

International Gay News Agency

Stonewall Features Syndicate

The Gayly Oklahoman

The computer of GPA's wire service, which has already begun to improve the speed and quality of news communication between gay publications, is owned by ...

15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 98.248.161.240 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

what Flounder fillet (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Gay 45

The Gay 45 and Răzvan Ion articles are not great. Can someone improve them? Ideally, but not necessarily, someone who speaks Romanian? Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that the main article has been moved to LGBTQ, all sub-articles (including the Wikiproject) can follow suit

Per the recent outcome of the Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024 move discussion which ended up with the main article being moved to LGBTQ, as the administrator who concluded the move noted, all sub-categories, templates and articles can now follow suit and should be migrated to LGBTQ.

As this is a large volume of articles (see Category:LGBT) across the entirety of Wikipedia, it will take some time and help from people, including some pages will require extra permissions that some members of the project may have. Raladic (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose That discussion had nowhere near enough participation to justify a mass move. Before reacting to 20 people who discussed the issue for 10 days without referencing past conversations or recruiting multicultural perspective, let's give people more time to react. You are suggesting making several hundred thousand edits and that is too much, too fast. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Are you're saying we need to review that closure (understandable; 10 days is fairly short) or open an RfC for mass-renaming articles with "LGBT" in the name? I think WP:SNOWBALL applies to most of those cases.

  I do think it would be sensible to run a discussion on this talkpage as to whether this project should rename to "WikiProject LGBTQ Studies". Personally I'd much rather we include the Plus so we don't have to do this all again in three years. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  You make it sound like it was some random move - it wasn't. It was the result of multiple years of discussion with the language evolving over time and away from the old LGBT to now the move inclusive LGBTQ, based on hard and supported data. Many of the people that were part of this years move discussion were also part of last years and have followed the trend and the discussions closely. And as was outlined in the move discussion that now concluded in support of the move, even last years discussion was already trending towards LGBTQ and was just waiting for that final data point to support our policy-based rename of the main article per our Wikipedia policies of WP:COMMONNAME which came and as such, the new move discussion of this year now passed in a WP:SNOWBALL. Now follows, just as the closing administrator has noted in the close that sub-articles follow as is our policy of WP:CONSISTENT (WP:CONSUB) sub-article titling.

  And many sub-pages themself have had move requests over the years, which always followed that they will be moved once the main LGBTQ article moves, which now the time has come as it has unequivocally overtaken the old less inclusive LGBT.

  I placed the notification here to ensure that there is wider awareness for those that may not have seen the move discussion (or the many before it that lead to it), but at this point, it appears absolutely appropriate to now follow suit with the sub article as the same argument for the move of the main article applies to why the sub-articles are now outdated with LGBT instead of LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders: Yes, I would like an RfC. I think that if there are to be 100k+ edits then it is fair to base that off an RfC rather than a 10-day, 20 person conversation. @Raladic: I am not disputing the validity of the arguments for the past move, but also, that brief discussion is not a summary or reflection of the whole discourse. I just opposed a move at Talk:LGBT_community#Requested_move_27_August_2024; could I invite you to respond to my opposition there? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds more like you want to reopen the RM discussion so you can have your say on a result you disagree with, rather than apply a local consensus on different articles beyond LGBTQ (per WP:CONSUB we're absolutely not going to do that). Post-mortem discussions of the RM should occur either at Talk:LGBTQ or WP:Move review. I don't think the current form of your argument is likely to overturn the result. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with @Bluerasberry's call of caution and more extensive discussion before proceeding with mass renaming. Distinct communities, like lesbians, require careful consideration that a brief, limited-participation discussion simply cannot provide. Lesbians, for instance, have a rich, complex history and a distinct identity that could be inadvertently obscured by blanket renaming; usage requires careful consideration. Similar concerns likely exist for other groups as well. Each sub-community may want to discuss how they are represented and categorized on Wikipedia. Is there not a mechanism to democratize mass edits? I'm fairly new and trying to get caught up but curious how Wikipedia typically handles such large-scale updates? I had hoped it was in a way that ensured all perspectives were very carefully considered. ViolanteMD (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That mechanism is called WP:consensus. WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy—the titles of articles are subject to guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, not to the popular vote. The discussion exists to establish what name most closesly matches Wikipedias guidelines; not what feels the most right/comfortable/sensitive/inclsuve to the most people (this is how you get 15-character monstrosities). Those things are important, but Wikipedia is not the place to WP:right great wrongs. Instead we hope that the majority of independent reliable sources get it right.

Frankly I don't understand how this change could meaningfully impact the L, G, B, or T's, considering we're strictly adding further characters which don't have to apply to them. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you for explaining. Consensus and democracy can feel like the same thing sometimes. Thank you for making me look up WP:COMMONNAME, I understand that it's about more than personal preferences or comfort levels but there is real cultural identity that is at risk of being lost in my opinion.

True consensus requires input from a wider ranger of editors and stakeholders, especially given the scale of the changes being proposed. Properly applying the guidelines of WP:COMMONNAME across such a broad range of articles must require more extensive review and discussion than this? While adding "characters" might seem straightforward, it could have an impact on whether the article represents the specific community appropriately or not. Would you like me to give you some examples of how that's the case? I'm happy to do so, but I just got a "contentious topic" warning message so I don't want to come off too aggressively. I understand feelings can run high when discussing these topics. Another reason to have a very careful discussion.

I think the changes need to reflect the usage across different contexts in this case but I'm also new here so I'm happy to just let it go. ViolanteMD (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you got the contentious topics advisory because you happened to edit a page that's related to something that's been deemed a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee, not because you seemed contentious while editing there. (It was more of a way to say "hey, just so you know, because this topic attracts more disruptive edits than usual, sometimes there are tighter guidelines so that things are less likely to get disruptive".) You probably got that template sent your way because you edited the Detransition talk page (but not because of anything specific you said there).

I don't have strong feelings right now on this section's actual topic (this is because my brain is fried from doing coding all day), but it sounds like you might have a specific example in mind where you are concerned adding the Q could be an issue. If you do, would you mind sharing an example of your own? - Purplewowies (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hope your brain gets a chance to rest! Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. It came from a user account so I thought it wasn't automated; apologies for the confusion!

What was in my mind at the time of writing was how different the experience of the term is for men (from my point of view as a woman, I can't hope to speak about it). Masculinity sure seems tied up in it from my point of view but that's as far as I'd be willing to guess. I've always been proud of being Q but I don't think that's everyone's experience.

Thinking about it a bit more, things like retaining generational (historical context) and cultural differences could be worth spending the time to discuss and factor in on a more granular level. Even the language itself could be valuable to preserve. I will think about it more though, as it is very late! ViolanteMD (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked the closer to reconsider, as I think notifying only this project and not all projects that will be affected by a mass-renaming of categories could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, especially on a move as impactful as this, and I'd say that's valid grounds for a move review with more independent eyes on it to judge. Void if removed (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd even say it's not enough participation for the RM itself. I'm having war flashbacks to ABC News (United States). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue that happened with the ABC News was that the move was based on a shaky argument on WP:PTOPIC from an existing disambiguation.

Whereas the move that occurred from LGBT to LGBTQ was based on the stronger basis for WP:COMMONNAME, which as was outlined in the RM was already trending there even at last years move discussion and was at a tentative “it looks like LGBTQ is getting there, but let’s wait a little longer for more data to confirm”, which now a year later has come with the worldwide scholar field continuing an increase in the use of LGBTQ (vs LGBT) supporting the move to LGBTQ, as well as ngram having released new data from previous up to 2019 (which LGBTQ had already overtaken LGBT, but only just, at the time) to the new dataset now going to 2022 which now overwhelmingly shows that LGBTQ is on a steep uptrend with a strong lead since 2019 and LGBT is on a clear downward trend in usage since 2017. All of these negate some of the points that Blueraspberry claimed above and in the other sub-topic RM (which isn't the appropriate venue to re-litigate this either) as this is worldwide data.

So there is no good policy argument at this point against the move, which is why it snowballed as even the one oppose in the RM called out, which itself conceded that at this point in time, there is no good policy reason not to move it, other than people opposing it because they personally don’t like it (be it for old historic context or other reasons, which are of course valid personal opinions, but not basis for move arguments, which are policy based).

Anyone is of course welcome to file a formal WP:move review if they do believe that there is a policy based reason against it, but personal opinion to maintain a now outdated non inclusive term on the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT for the now worldwide more common LGBTQ acronym won’t be strong enough for that. A move review also can’t be initiated just because of personal disagreement with the outcome per WP:MRNOT, so there must be a strong policy based reason of why the community consensus that was based in support of the points raised in last years review and the now followed strong support this year would not reflect the policies of en-wiki (which personally as the opener of the RM and supporter last years, I do think that the move request was proper and well grounded in our policies and backed by the data and the community to support it, even if only 20 people voted for it).

Lacking a formal filing of a move review, with this note here, we should slowly focus on moving forward instead, which is why I raised the point here to begin with to discuss strategies of the follow up rename. This here is not be the right place to re-litigate the move if someone wants to formally challenge it. Raladic (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about this here. In terms of moving pages, here's some I know of (and have significantly contributed to) which should be moved to new names:

• Pets and the LGBT community to Pets and the LGBTQ community
• LGBT representation in children's television to LGBTQ representation in children's television
• Netflix and LGBT representation in animation to Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation
• Disney and LGBT representation in animation to Disney and LGBTQ representation in animation
• LGBT themes in anime and manga to LGBTQ themes in anime and manga
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 2020s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2020s
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2010s
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 2000s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2000s
• History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 1990s
• History of LGBT characters in animated series to History of LGBTQ characters in animated series
• List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts to List of LGBTQ characters in radio and podcasts
• List of animated series with LGBT characters to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990–1999 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 1990–1999
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000-2004 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2000-2004
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2005-2009 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2005-2009
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010-2014 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010-2014
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2015-2019 to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2015-2019
• List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present to List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2020–present
• List of animated films with LGBT characters to List of animated films with LGBTQ characters
• Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth to Lists of LGBTQ figures in fiction and myth
• List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction to List of LGBTQ characters in modern written fiction

Among many others... I don't know if I should put in moves for each page individually (which could get cumbersome), or if I should do some of these in batches (like all the Lists of animated series pages together). Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I should put in moves for each page individually - no we shouldn't need RM discussion for each of these articles and instead can do WP:BOLD moves per consensus that they are subtopics, so should follow the lead of the main article LGBTQ per WP:CONSISTENT - specifically WP:CONSUB for subtopics.

I just am holding off another day or so for the community to see the note here and then was going to start with page moves.

Another admin - @HouseBlaster has already helped with starting the category moves, which can be performed by bot-moves through the speedy move procedures for categories and following the same sub-topic consistent naming policies. Raladic (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the extensive discussion that led to the decision to move the main article to LGBTQ, and I understand the rationale behind wanting to update related sub-articles for consistency. Regardless, I remain concerned about the potential of a broad change causing us to overlook the unique historical and cultural contexts of specific communities within the LGBTQ+ umbrella. Appending a term that even a few people consider hate speech without careful consideration seems exceedingly unwise. Many pages have already been moved though so I see that this is a moot point. ViolanteMD 17:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as I noted on your talk page the other day, we have specific goals and policies on Wikipedia and we WP:SUMMARIZE the global consensus based on reliable sources.

This includes that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so we do sometimes have terms that some people may take personal offence with. So with this, we follow and represent the wide worldwide consensus view (and often lag behind it in by many years, such as was the case here), which has now shown that LGBTQ has overtaken LGBT as the widely used term for the wider community and as such, we follow this. A large majority of the community has embraced and reclaimed queer and it was specifically added to the acronym by the community to signify this.

This isn't to say that we don't acknowledge that some people may not like the term, which is why the history of it is extensively discussed at the other main article - Queer#Origins_and_early_use and in move brevity at LGBTQ#History_of_the_term. Our articles continuously evolve and can be improved based on RS of course, but again, it does mean that sometimes we do have terms that some people of the population may take some personal offense with. Raladic (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand the need to follow global consensus and reprint "widely accepted terms", especially as language evolves. My concern is less about personal offense and more about ensuring that our articles accurately reflect the nuanced experiences and identities they're attempting to describe. While I appreciate that you think the word has been widely reclaimed, the historical context and varying acceptance of the term across different demographics and regions should be carefully considered when applying broad changes. If you think this is as careful as Wikipedia is capable of being, you almost certainly know better than I do. I'm trying to get up to speed on how this process works but I feel obligated to at least say something at the moment because I know people who don't want the label attached to them. Thanks for hearing me out. ViolanteMD 17:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think changing category names erases things within those categories. Broad words are obviously broader than narrow words, and I think that's self-evident. You don't lose nuance just because an article on, say, lesbians suddenly says "Part of our LGBTQ series" instead of "Part of our LGBT series" (just an example I've made up). It has no material impact on the content of the article. Lewisguile (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I understand your point about category names not directly impacting article content. However, I believe the issue is more nuanced than that.

While it's true that changing "LGBT" to "LGBTQ" might seem minor, it can have broader implications. For some individuals and communities, particularly those who have been labeled queer pejoratively, I don't think it's fair to say it has no material impact on the content of the article unilaterally.

My concern is about applying this change universally without careful consideration to its history as a slur. ViolanteMD 10:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that vague concern is not a valid reason (especially if unsourced or not backed up by policy). We work based on WP policy and our decisions should reflect that. Wikipedia also doesn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Can you direct us to any specific examples of policy that would support your objection?

As there has been a concerted move by a small minority of editors to challenge any article with queer in the title, I think we need to be especially sure that objections are policy-based and not based on straw, motivated reasoning or WP:POV pushing (even if well meaning). Lewisguile (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the Wikipedia policies. I appreciate the need for policy-based decisions rather than personal opinions. However, I find it frankly insulting to suggest that objections to this change might be part of some "concerted move by a small minority of editors to challenge any article with queer in the title." This implication of conspiracy or bad faith is unwarranted and dismissive of genuine concerns. I've already explained my reason for raising the concern multiple times here.

While I'm still learning about Wikipedia policies, a few that seem potentially relevant are:

1. WP:NPOV - Universally applying "LGBTQ" might inadvertently take a stance on the reclamation of "queer" that isn't universally held by all subgroups.
2. WP:COMMONNAME - While "LGBTQ" may be becoming more common overall, it may not be the most common name in all contexts or for all sub-communities.
3. Precision - In some cases, using "LGBTQ" instead of "LGBT" may be less precise, especially for historical articles or when discussing specific sub-groups.

I'm suggesting these points merit deeper consideration as widespread change is implemented. A more granular approach is taken for nearly every other topic I've dug into on this site. Why wouldn't it be the approach for topics as important as this? ViolanteMD 11:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Off the top of my head there's WP:BLPCAT implications once the category changes percolate down to eg. LGBT People, per Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question. If you don't have individuals using "LGBTQ" about themselves, you shouldn't either.

First example I see, Darren Grimes, a right-wing gay man in England who has vocally opposed usage of the word queer and regards it as a slur.

This page currently has 3 direct "LGBT" categories, and more implied by category hierarchy (ie English gay men is inside English LGBT men)

Now either you categorize their sexuality in a way they don't identify with (indeed, strongly oppose), in violation of WP:BLPCAT, or you take those categories off, and this is a decision that is going to have to be made on a page by page basis. Who knows, maybe there's only a handful like Grimes and it is no big deal to fix up, but it bears consideration. Void if removed (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an obvious misapplication of BLPCAT, which is intended to protect subjects from being outed, libeled, or having their religion/gender/sexuality described incorrectly. It does not exist to protect bigots from being grouped together with people they don't like—which, in this case, includes not only the identity queer but all gender and sexual minorities beyond lesbian, gay, and bisexual.

It's not necessary that we bend our terminology or our categorization system in order to accomodate the hate-filled ramblings of transphobes. Is there a more compelling example, ideally one which doesn't address its readers as body mutilators and attention-seeking twerps? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this really good faith? Sheesh. ViolanteMD 18:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume that VIR is arguing in good faith, but I'm not compelled by their argument—that implicitly categorizing someone who identifies as Foo within Category:Foo, Bar, and Baz people (the WP:COMMONNAME for a common and encyclopedic grouping, given their unifying struggles), is automatically a BLP violation solely because our Foo person is a vocal bigot who despises their more radical peers who stoop to calling themselves Bar, and the notion that one can even be Baz. They're not being miscategorized or labelled against their will because they are verifiably Foo, and therefore, Foo, Bar, or Baz, and we don't need to adjust or rename our hierarchy just because they feel gruntled by the latter two terms –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion but I'm concerned that we're moving away from the core issues and policy considerations. While LGBTQ may be becoming more common overall, it may not be the most common name in all contexts or for all sub-communities. We should be open to nuanced application where appropriate.

While I agree the BLPCAT shouldn't be used to "protect bigots", it does raise valid questions about how we categorize individuals who explicitly reject certain terms. This deserves thoughtful discussion, not dismissal. Wikipedia typically takes a nuanced, context-specific approach to terminology. Why should this topic be treated any differently? Your comparison lacks the key piece of context here: this used to be hate speech and is still considered hate speech by some people in the community.

I suggest we move away from categorizing each other's arguments and instead focus on how we can implement this change in a way that respects our core policies and the diversity of the communities we're attempting to write about. ViolanteMD 00:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do you get precision from? It isn't a policy. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You’re right, it’s not. I wrongly assumed precision was part of capturing “encyclopedic” knowledge. I see how we’re not actually trying to capture “truth” though so precision isn’t relevant to the argument. It’s about representing the body of published work accurately. That feels very counterintuitive when talking about this topic. ViolanteMD 13:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@ViolanteMD, I know you'd made previous comments but you didn't cite any policy or concrete examples before I prompted. You made what seemed to me to be vague comments so I asked for clarification so we could address any specific, policy-based concerns that you had.

You'll also note I didn't accuse you, personally, of anything. I said there has been a pattern of activity that has been undertaken by a small number of editors (largely stirred to action by the RM from LGBT to LGBTQ, at least this time), and that that was reason for each of us to be specific in relation to policy. I didn't say you were one of those people.

To address your points:

1. "Might inadvertently make a stance" is still a little vague. But the point is that we're not making a stance at all; we're reflecting the language used by RSes. Ignoring RSes is more likely to look like taking a stance than summarising what they say, since that's an active choice to go against consensus to make the point we'd prefer to make ourselves. In this case, however, category terms don't imply agreement with those category terms by the things within them.

Now, I agree that we shouldn't say "X is LGBTQ" when X has very clearly said they don't want to use the term to refer to themselves (at least, within reason). But that doesn't seem to me to be what we're doing. An LGBTQ category is just a category.

2. The whole point of the RM closure was that, actually, there is evidence that LGBTQ is the more common name among RSes. There has been a significant shift towards that term in the last decade or so, which we noticed over a year ago and specifically delayed so we could have more time to monitor the trends further, which gives an even clearer picture now that it's even more the case than before.

3. Precision is a fair point, and I agree with you that there will need to be exceptions. But this is something that can be addressed on a case by case basis because there will never be a blanket solution that does justice to everyone. Lewisguile (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and for clarifying the context of your previous comments. I really appreciate it.

In regard to reflecting language used by reliable sources, I agree that our primary goal should be to reflect that language, but we should be cautious about how we apply this principle, especially with evolving terminology. While category terms don't necessarily imply agreement, they do shape how information is organized and accessed. We should probably consider cases where RSes use different terms for the same concept, the potential impact on individuals or croups who may not identify with the term, and as someone else said, Wikipedia's global audience and how terms are interpreted cross-culturally.

I totally acknowledge the recent move request closure and observed shift towards LBGTQ usage. To ensure transparency and maintain NPOV, we could document this shift in relevant articles, citing specific studies or analyses that demonstrate the trend. Alternatively, we could consider creating a separate article/section for the evolution of LGBTQ+ terminology in academic and popular discourse. This would probably require frequent maintenance though.

I appreciate your agreement with my vaguely remembered point; we could develop guidelines for when to use more specific subcategories (like "transgender rights" instead of general "LGBTQ rights") or potentially create a process for reviewing and approving exceptions to the general categorization scheme? I appreciate that several people are already working on redirects/cross-references to help enhance discoverability. ViolanteMD 00:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Alternatively, we could consider creating a separate article/section for the evolution of LGBTQ+ terminology in academic and popular discourse. - We already have a lot of content on the history and evolution of the term at the article at LGBTQ#History_of_the_term and LGBTQ#Variants. Feel free to add to it of course.

As for your question on guidelines on more specific categories - that is the default Wikipedia wide guideline, so we are going to already be covered. You can check out WP:CATSPECIFIC for the details - basically the gist of this guideline is that if a topic is say Transgender rights in the US, that it is already categorized only in the most specific categories, which in that case are Category:Transgender rights in the United States and Category:Transgender rights by country. That is the default of how we do categorization for pretty much this reason. Most categories do roll up into a tree structure that users can move up through, but in general, we do always categorize Article subjects in the most specific categories already :) Raladic (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand that Wikipedia generally uses the most specific categories possible but my concern is slightly different. It's not about the specificity of categories, but about the terminology used within those categories. For instance, dispensing with the problematic history of the term for a moment, which I believe makes it obvious why we need to do this exceedingly carefully, consider a hypothetical category like "LGBT writers in 1860s America". If we change this to "LGBTQ writers in 1860s America", we would be applying contemporary terminology to a historical context where it wasn't used. I believe we need to be cautious and consider the implications very carefully. I suggest we review how the transition from LGBT to LGBTQ in category names and article titles might affect historical accuracy or context-specific usage and consider developing guidelines for when to use LGBT vs LGBTQ, especially in historical or specific communities contexts. This would also encourage editors to discuss changes on talk pages for articles where the terminology shift might be contentious, which would probably be very fruitful discussions. ViolanteMD 01:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think most of those letters were applicable back then. IIRC lesbian would have been sapphic or homosexual, gay homosexual, and transgender hermaphroditic (if they were even described). Sincerely, Dilettante 01:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, we call the inhabitants of many ancient cultures by modern English names with little relation to the original. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response but I disagree with what you said. The concept of homosexuality existed in the 19th century but qu**r meant something entirely different at that time. Qu**r is appropriated hate speech that could presently be used to describe people who would be considered heteronormative from a 19th century perspective. ViolanteMD 09:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, having RM discussion for each of these articles would be cumbersome. I support doing WP:BOLD "moves per consensus that they are subtopics, so should follow the lead of the main article LGBTQ per WP:CONSISTENT. Glad to hear another anime is helping with category moves as that is surely important. Historyday01 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Move review requested Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#LGBTQ Bluerasberry (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Opened RM for the wikiproject below. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Whoops I posted to an unwatched subpage of this WikiProject

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Task forces/Person § Tony Leondis Folly Mox (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussions about adding media depiction sections to Non-binary gender and Pansexuality pages

I recently began discussions about adding media depiction sections to the Non-binary gender and Pansexuality pages here and here. Your comments would be welcome. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gender self-identification#Requested move 20 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender self-identification#Requested move 20 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Template:WP LGBTQIA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:WP LGBTQIA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24 § Template:WP LGBTQIA until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I made this shortcut because LGBTQIA is commonly used (e.g. when you type it on the IPhone the rainbow flag emoji, transgender flag emoji, and transgender symbol emoji appear as recommended emojis to substitute for the acronym). DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT pride#Requested move 24 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT pride#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT rights in Canada#Requested move 19 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT rights in Canada#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#Requested move 30 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#Requested move 30 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kevin Spacey § Kevin Spacey sexual misconduct allegations spun off into another article without consensus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kevin Spacey § Kevin Spacey sexual misconduct allegations spun off into another article without consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Template {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} needs to update link to Portal:LGBTQ

Hi, Raising this here as I’m not sure how many people are watching the template page for the Wikiproject - can someone with template editing permissions please answer the Template talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Edit Request, 15 September 2024 - Update link to Portal:LGBTQ edit request to update the WikiProject to the now updated new title for Portal:LGBTQ. Thanks in advance. Raladic (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT rights in country" vs "LGBT in country"

 Courtesy link: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Wikidata/Solution to the ‟Bonnie and Clyde” problem
 Courtesy link: m:Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects

Hello ! With several editors of LGBT projects across languages we're working on cleaning Wikidata to have a better understanding of missing articles and translation opportunities.

One thing that happens regularly is that articles by country have "rights" in their name in en:. Compare for instance Intersex rights in France and fr:Situation des personnes intersexes en France.

The issue is that "LGBT rights in country" is not conceptually the same thing as "LGBT in country". For instance in fr:Situation des personnes intersexes en France we talk about demography, media visibility, activism, etc which are not strictly "rights". The separation is even clearer with LGBT rights in France, which is the equivalent of fr:Droits LGBT en France, while fr:LGBTI en France has no equivalent here.

However, sometimes article on en: are called LGBT rights, but actually have a broader scope, for instance LGBT rights in Spain does not only speak about rights but also history and culture.

There are two options that require nothing from your side :

• trust the name, which is the simplest, current situation : when both "LGBT rights in X" and "LGBT in X" exists on non-English Wikipedias, LGBT rights in XXX articles in en: will be linked to articles specifically about rights.
  • Downside is that you might not be aware that more general articles exist (for instance that the content of fr:LGBTI en France is not translated here)
• trust the content : when both "LGBT rights in X" and "LGBT in X" exists on non-English Wikipedias, LGBT rights in XXX articles in en: will be linked to general articles.

In either cases, there will be two separate Wikidata items, and interwiki links will rely on redirections. This way the Wikidata anthology is clean and articles about roughly the same topic in different languages are still visible.

Thanks ! Léna (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. A related issue came up a while ago that highlighted our LGBT country-related articles could use a review and some organizning/cleanup. I think the ideal structure is to have LGBT people in [country] as a WP:BROADCONCEPT article for each country, with more specific subtopics (most commonly LGBT rights in... and LGBT history in...) spun off into their own articles as warranted.

With that in mind, I think the "trust the name" option above is preferable in the long-term; we can work to fill the gaps like LGBT people in France and LGBT people in Spain to ensure comprehensive coverage.--Trystan (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer "community" over "people" just as a sidenote but no strong opinions otherwise. Thanks for working on this! Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

To my ear, "LGBT in ..." is odd. LGBT and its variants tend to be used as an adjective in formal communication: LGBT rights, LGBT people, LGBT community, etc. We do have a significant number of "LGBT in" uses in article titles. Searching for [intitle:"LGBT in"], I get these articles:

1. LGBT in Argentina
2. History of LGBT in policing
3. History of LGBT in journalism
4. LGBT in Mexico
5. LGBT in Australia
6. LGBT in Puerto Rico
7. LGBT in Guatemala
8. LGBT in Colombia
9. LGBT in Chile
10. LGBT in New Zealand
11. LGBT in Canada

There are also three disambiguation pages: LGBT in Russia, LGBT in California, and LGBT in Poland. And many redirects.

Is there appetite for moving the articles? I'd prefer either "people" or "community". The dab pages and redirect pages can stay where they are. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support those moves. LGBT in the United States was moved to LGBT people in the United States a year and a half-ago, also on the basis that the title was missing a noun.--Trystan (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"LGBT in" is an option but there are others : LGBT people in, LGBT community in, Sexual and gender minorities in, Sexual and gender diversity in... As long as it's easy to see that the article is the most general one it's fine :) Léna (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What about "LGBT identities in X country". In Spanish, we have "Sexual diversity in x country", which is another option. Best--Freddy eduardo (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Freddy eduardo IMHO identarian approach is not favored by many who are primarily queer and/or fluid. Sexual diversity could bring another set of issues like including straight people that have non-normative/'vanilla' sexual practices. Zblace (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I nominated Poland for discussion, it should be a redirect per wp:2DABS. Check also the discussion linked in that AfD, which carries links for RfD of Brazil, which links to RfD of Russia and RM of USA, and AfD of Israel. I also just created LGBT in Mexico (disambiguation). There are some here that deserve attention. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Like others, I think it's missing a word. I support LGBTQ people in... I think people is preferable to community because there may be more than one community in any given country and therefore people is more neutral. Lewisguile (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with @Lewisguile + some people are acting individually or are so isolated they only manage to find one or two connections (in their niche), yet they act with agency and have visibility and significance to be featured in articles like this. Zblace (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Léna just moved LGBT (rights) in Croatia. Zblace (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Leave everything as it is, do not artificially link articles with names different in meaning. This is just the 1,089,237th manifestation of the ‟Bonnie and Clyde” problem at Wikidata, and awaits a more permanent solution at Wikidata. It is not up to Wikipedia to fix Wikidata's problems. In the spirit of lending a helping hand, though, we could use wd links to redirects where feasible and helpful, which Wikidata now supports (m:Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects) as a temporary workaround pending a true fix to the enforced 1-to-1 linking situation, which is responsible for all of the problems. (I have used cross-wiki rd's for a few years, and they work fine.) We should not waste precious editor time here at Wikipedia trying to solve individual manifestations of the B&C problem here, when we could all be doing something more productive. They should get their own house in order. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, redirects are good and what's what I'm already doing and didn't wait on your approval :)

But the issue does not come from Wikidata, as I stated with LGBT rights in France/fr:Droits LGBT en France/fr:LGBTI en France. Conceptually they are two topics, one general one detailed, and lot of articles in en: are titled with the detailed concept while actually talking about the general. That's the issue here. Léna (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The catch-22 of non-binary categories

Discussion at the Village Pump. Please join there if you'd like to comment. Nosferattus (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Trans poetry

Came across this article while patrolling and thought I would bring it here for any feedback and input. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm new to editing, I did notice a lot of citations needed with that article. That being said, Danez Smith would be a great addition to the notable trans poets list! JATG (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It feels like a topic area that will definitely merit a Wikipedia article and should be helped and developed. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I am currently working on my graduate coursework and lab rotations, but I will look to help expand it when I get the chance! ;3 Just-A-Trans-Girl (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Finally created a new(ish) article on LGBTQ themes in Western animation

It's entitled LGBTQ themes in Western animation. After working on it, off and on for over a year (since March 2023), I finally decided to publish it. It was a long-time coming. I admit the page isn't perfect, but any comments on methods of improving it would be fully welcome. I posted a little about that on that article's talk page, but I thought I'd post here as well. It was only fitting for me to recreate the page since I was the one who created all the other pages in the first place some years ago... Just thought I'd give you all a heads up! Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Harper Steele § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Harper Steele § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2024, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Also part of the discussion here whether to keep the subjects former name or to exclude it. cyberdog958^Talk 07:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Gender Dysphoria in Children

This article seems like it needs a lot of attention. Also some minor edit warring. Any help is appreciated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria_in_children HenrikHolen (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Generation Z and LGBT

Hi, all! I work over in New Page Patrol and came across this article. It had a lot of copyvio issues that have now been redacted, but it needs a lot of clean up. Your help is appreciated! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. After approximately seven days since the last comment it's time to close this requested move. I would like to extend my gratitude to everyone who participated, shared resources, and offered personal insights. Although we are looking to find consensus, I also wanted to share with everyone how people voted since I find that helpful in trying to get a feel of where everyone here stands. I created a spreadsheet and used the participants' votes as if we were in a first past the post election. With that, LGBTQ+ was the clear winner in both first past the post and with a Borda count voting systems by a long shot.

Several points were raised during the discussion, particularly concerning the most commonly used terms and the recent transition of pages from LGBT to LGBTQ. Regarding the latter, I believe its relevance in this context is somewhat limited here as a Wikiproject is really more of a place for us as a community and hub then as a direct part of the main encyclopedia project we are all a part of. Points were raised that it’s better to have the pages and project have the same name but I wasn’t seeing much of this compared to the rest of the conversations. As for the first point—the prevalence of commonly used terms—some challenges were noted. For example the selection of LGBT and LGBTQ as it is the most commonly used versions but it might not be the best fit for the Wikiproject and our community and this was laid out in many comments.

Working to create an encyclopedia is an interesting balance where we both want to use words and phrasing found in the world and at the same time we lean on academic works and systems. This was noted particularly in the discussions about potentially renaming the wikiproject to Queer Studies or a similar iteration. Many times when I’m working on articles in this space it's the phrasing I use to find materials. I want to take a quick moment to let people who have shared negative experiences of being called “queer” know that their personal notes were important to me when making this decision and I thank you for your openness with our community. For those who highlighted the evolving nature of language I think that is an important thing to keep in mind, 10-15 years ago asexual, aromantic, and intersex peoples were not as visible as they are today and as time changes so will the English language and Wikipedia.

If I am way off base here, broken a rule/guideline, or have missed something obvious I welcome feedback and comments on my talk page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ Studies – The options are as follows:

• WikiProject LGBT studies (status quo)
• WikiProject LGBTQ studies
• WikiProject LGBT+ studies
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies
• Any of the other names listed at LGBTQ#Variants.

Following the move of the page LGBT to LGBTQ, several articles and categories have been moved per WP:CONSUB and similar (which does not apply to projectspace). Though the move has been challenged, it will likely be closed as a SNOW endorse. On this page, it was discussed whether this WikiProject should be moved, but the dissent indicates a discussion is necessary. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if we did something productive instead of debating to add or not add a single letter to a project space 115.189.88.238 (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@115.189.88.238 This. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No one is required to participate. Those participating here are doing it because they think it's important enough to spend this much time on. If you don't, it's fine, don't participate, but sniping from the peanut gallery is the opposite of helpful and is arguably disruptive. Please, no more comments on whether or not the discussion is worth having. Valereee (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

!Votes

• LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT - Since a WikiProject doesn't need to adhere as strictly to the data (which does show that LGBT is on a clear downward trend, while both LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ are on a steep upwards trend, with LGBTQ itself having overtaken LGBT several years ago) as the article space does with regards to following the data and a good amount of the community would have preferred even in the initial move request of LGBTQ that we could explicitly add the + to be LGBTQ+.

I propose that we combine the two factors that LGBTQ has clearly and strongly overtaken LGBT, which is fully supported by the data and acknowledges our community's acceptance and reclamation (if we didn't, especially when we now do so for the article space, then that would be hypocrisy) of Queer identities and the inclusion in the now most widely accepted term, but also use our community preference of adding the + to be explicitly inclusive of other parts of the community, which is partially supported by the fact that LGBTQ+ is also on a steep upwards trend since 2015 as I linked above. Raladic (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• +1 to Q+. I'll reiterate my analysis in the RM, that several LGBTQ+ journalistic organizations (NLGJA) and stylebooks (AP) have moved toward using LGBTQ+. Given the upward trend, and the broad scope of this project, I think the plus is important for inclusivity. It is probably what things are moving toward, and I don't want to run through this process again in two years.

Queers like me have been using queer as a positive umbrella term for forty years.[5] Wikipedia is allowed to say queer. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBT+ > LGBT > LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ. I've been called "queer" as a slur more times than I care to count. I'm hardly alone in this. It's hurtful, even if "reclaimed". The viewers of this article can be divided into three nebulous groups: those unfamiliar with the topic or otherwise opinion-less, those pro-LGBT, and those anti-LGBT. For the first camp, such a title encourages them using a (ex-)slur, which could bring back bad memories were it to be used when talking to someone who was called it when younger. For those in the second camp, it is perhaps affirming, perhaps neutral, and perhaps insulting. Those affirmed would nonetheless be affirmed to an equal extent by the term LGBT+, unless they're genderqueer (which I'm sorry for, but any acronym must necessarily exclude some or include too many). For those in the third camp, it's a validation of the slur as something to be said frequently, rather than something cruel. The name change allows those moving (or stuck) backwards to use it in the original sense, and, when called out, claim it isn't meant to be hurtful and one is misunderstanding them. Though the title of an enwiki project is hardly a clincher, I've heard "it's even on Wikipeda" WRT to other things far too many times. An additional excuse should not be given.

There's a crucial difference between being called "gay" as opposed to "queer". The former was used by members of the group it insulted as a descriptive word before it became a slur. To refuse reclamation would be to disrespect their (largely much worse) experiences. The latter originated with an outgroup, and to use it is to vindicate them. Copied from my !vote on the other RM. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that people wanting to use a slur will do so regardless of its status on wikipedia. Someone using anything as an excuse is just an asshole. I generally think that most people either fall into the "call people slurs" category or not, and our page's name doesn't move them from one into the other. Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree! Aaron Liu (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that people wanting to use a slur will do so regardless of its status on wikipedia. I agree, and actually supported the idea of the camps being static ("For those in the third camp" not "For those currently in the third camp or who will be moved as a result of a name change"). Someone using anything as an excuse is just an asshole. I agree, and never claimed otherwise. I merely stated another excuse isn't ideal. I generally think that most people either fall into the "call people slurs" category or not, and our page's name doesn't move them from one into the other. I stated the same thing, except divided the people who don't call others slurs qua slurs into two. If you disagree with me, there are plenty of points I made to engage with. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am disagreeing that using an academic term that has a history as a reclaimed slur is "a validation of the slur as something to be said frequently" and that it "allows those moving backwards to use it in the original sense."

If you are trying to engage in conversation with and debate people who use slurs against you then you are already making a mistake, the issue does not lie with them having yet another "excuse" when these people will simply make up their own. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

if someone is saying "it's even on Wikipeda" to you "far too many times" after they call you a slur intentionally I don't mean to be disrespectful but I think you are simply engaging with the wrong people. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To add, what I think is actually happening is you are going into conversations with people using the term queer *correctly* and not as a slur, telling them it's a slur, and then being corrected. Am I wrong? It has been reclaimed for over 40 years. It is now an academic and umbrella term to refer to the queer community. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Though the title of an enwiki project is hardly a clincher, I've heard "it's even on Wikipeda" WRT to other things far too many times. An additional excuse should not be given was about Covid-19, not slurs, but your point is valid.

To add, what I think is actually happening is you are going into conversations with people using the term queer *correctly* and not as a slur, telling them it's a slur, and then being corrected. Am I wrong? If I were so ardently opposed to the term, I wouldn't have opened this RM. I'm not so much an idiot as to fail to realize the likely outcome is LGBTQ+. People can use it in the reclaimed sense and I won't say anything; only because this discussion centers about its acceptance do I point out its history.

If you are trying to engage in conversation with and debate people who use slurs against you then you are already making a mistake... I think you are simply engaging with the wrong people. They almost certainly should be blocked, but not everything is so cut and dry. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not having any luck finding other slurs we use in a similar way. Do you have any examples? ViolanteMD 09:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Crip is commonly used by disabled people, for one. But whether or not similar examples exist in other cases is probably irrelevant. For our purposes, what matter is that the initialism is used in this situation by RSes. Lewisguile (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a really great place to look for examples; I wish I had thought of that. Thanks! ViolanteMD 09:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Dyke is another, like with Dyke March — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Indian" as in Indian Health Service, Indian Law, and the term frequently used by activists: "NDN" is also an example, although I don't believe there is an assertion that the term has been entirely reclaimed and can be used uncritically by non-native people as a descriptor. It is an example of a slur being used in an academic context, however. Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBT+ > LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT for me. shorter and succinct while still including diverse categories carries the day. lizthegrey (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ+ > LGBT > LGBTQ > LGBT+ - Look, if we were using my pet version of the acronym, it'd be WikiProject LGBTQIA+ studies... but I'm not sure my personal preferences for acronym (I like my letter being present) should push the project name to be that long. I'm in preference of the Q and + slightly over other options because it's in line with increased LGBTQ usage and implies a broader acronym with the plus. Absent that, I think we should stay at LGBT, and the other options I prefer less than just not moving in the first place, though I'm not against them. (Personal side comment: I think defining certain letters being discussed here as an outgroup whose experiences just aren't as bad feels... Oppression Olympics-y? Gatekeepy? I'd probably have kept my feelings on that to myself except that I feel like bringing it up in a discussion of this nature is a bit unproductive, a la a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.) - Purplewowies (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about whether some groups were discriminated against more or less. I'm saying the average LGBT+ anglophone with an internet connection is much better off than the average LGBT+ person 100 years ago, whether homosexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, nonbinary, xenogender, or any other group. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd agree that people now are better off in many cases than people 100 years ago. That just didn't look like what you were saying when explaining "gay" as originating in an in-group with worse experiences who would be disrespected if you didn't reclaim it and "queer" as originating in an out-group with presumably less bad experiences who would be vindicated if you did, in the context of your broader !vote discussing your relative opposition to options that include the Q versus those that don't. A "that's an outgroup, these experiences are worse" sentiment is the one that came through for me. If that's not what you meant to convey then I apologize for misunderstanding you. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  That was my bad for not being more clear. I'm using ingroup to refer to anyone who is LGBT+ and outgroup anyone who is not. "Queer" came from the opressors, not the oppressed is another way to put it. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT Queer is the umbrella term used in academics that fits this project best, and the + allows for a broader inclusion of people who don't identify as L, G, B, T, or Q such as intersex or other minorities.  :Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually that is an excellent point that you mentioned that I forgot above - the scientific field that focuses on us as a group is called Queer studies or LGBTQ studies, which futher strengthens the case for LGBTQ+ or LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as is. I really don't see the need for change here, there are countless variations out there in recent years, but LGBT has been the standard for decades, it reeks of recentism to want to change it to one of the countless alternatives.★Trekker (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT as per others. It's consistent and it reflects common usage (and it's forward-thinking, in the case of the Q+). Lewisguile (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ+ Honestly my personal preference would have been for queer studies (which, by a huge margin, is the most common term for the "X studies" construction; cf. another ngram), but I think the LGBTQ+ construction is the most inclusive in what this WikiProject tries to cover (and isn't that the point?). Unlike the articles, we can let the name of the WikiProject be purely descriptive of what subjects the WikiProject aims to cover. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBT > LGBT+ > LGBTQ+/LGBTQ The current abbreviation is fine. It already includes everyone. A plus can be added to make that more explicit, though I don't consider it necessary. As StarTrekker said, "LGBT" is the long-established abbreviation and the one with the highest name recognition and I don't see why we should prefer one of the countless newer variations. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the reason, as was also outlined in the RM of LGBTQ is that LGBT is NOT the term that is most highly used anymore, as LGBTQ has overtaken it as the most used term, so that argument is pretty shaky. Raladic (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBT+ > LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT Honestly I'd rather that the term "LGBT" wouldn't be a list of identities and rather something like SGM (Sexual and Gender Minority), but it is what it is and everyone know what LGBT is. So with that in mind I'd prefer LGBT+ or LGBTQ+ as it doesn't suggest an end to a list, but shows there are more identities beyond just LGBT or LGBTQ. I prefer LGBT+ over LGBTQ+ because it keeps it short and sweet DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Q>>>>LGBT>+>anything longer. Matching the title of the actual article is what's most important. It annoys me to no end IRL when I come upon "LGBTQ+" or variations, since "Queer" and the plus sign serve the exact same purpose of being catch-alls (no one identifies as just queer. Mach61 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ or LGBTQ+ - I think aligning with the name of the main article is important, though so is precisely defining the scope. LGBTQ matches the main article (which itself was moved based on that being the predominant term in common usage), but LGBTQ+ more clearly conveys that identities such as asexual, aromantic, and intersex are included in the scope.--Trystan (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBT>LGBT+ - Until I learn more about the MOGAI community and xenogenders, I think these options cover everyone without using reappropriated hate speech. ViolanteMD 10:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Given that queer studies has been an explicitly stated core part of the wikiproject's mandate from the very beginning, avoiding widespread use of queer here is not and has never been possible. I don't see why it being a reclaimed term would make it desirable to try.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Gay" has been an insult for many younger people in a way that "queer" hasn't. "Gay and lesbian" have also been described as exclusive or undesirable terms by, for example, some African Americans (those who advocate for same-gender-loving instead), so no term will be entirely free of contention. That's why we defer to RSes. Lewisguile (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

If you don't know enough about intersex or asexual people why are you voting on this here? Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I’m bisexual and a medical doctor. What are your qualifications? ViolanteMD 19:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC) You're a medical doctor who doesn't know enough about intersexuality? Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Are you familiar with medical specialties? I’m a trained pathologist but I’m not a pediatric endocrinologist or a DSD expert. What are your qualifications again? ViolanteMD 19:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) You're coming into wikiproject LGBT studies and directly stating that you're making a vote out of ignorance. We have articles you can read to learn more before voting. I find that irresponsible. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Want me to remove it? I think “+” covers anything I don’t know about personally. Wikipedia is not where I get my medical information from…sorry. What are your qualifications again? ViolanteMD 19:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC) One great thing about Wikipedia is that you can't actually demand personal information about other people to determine if you like their opinions (and you've already stated that being a medical doctor has nothing to do with queer people, so unsure how that's a "qualification" for you). And yes, I think if you're unwilling to learn more about queer studies which is the goal of this project then you shouldn't be voting about the name of it out of ignorance. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC) so I should delete my vote then? Just want to make sure I’m doing this right ViolanteMD 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I'm changing my tone because I didn't realize you'd only been here a month. Firstly, welcome. We don't usually care about peoples' "qualifications" or personal identities when editing on Wikipedia. Your edits and contributions are what are important, and most people stay pretty anonymous. Plus, being an MD doesn't really directly translate to editing skills so bringing it up isn't very helpful for a discussion unless you're say editing an article on pathology. I can't tell you whether you should or shouldn't remove your vote and frankly most people can't (or shouldn't) unless it's egregious. I was putting in response to your vote a comment on why I felt it should be disregarded by whoever closes this discussion. Do as you want, but this is a forum and I had the opinions of the readers in mind as well. Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) @Sock-the-guy, you were the one who started this not-very-useful sidebar. Whoever closes this doesn't need you to point out anything about other people's opinions. @ViolanteMD, no, you don't need to delete your opinion. (It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and the closer looks primarily at reasoning, not at numbers on one side or the other.) Please, both of you, stop making life harder for the closer. Valereee (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (to both of you) In this pseudonymous environment, editors' claims of expertise are not usually verifiable, and subject-matter expertise is not required for editing or !voting. Funcrunch (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I'll knock it off, sorry. My point about the *reasoning* for the vote stands but even I can see I'm getting carried away here. Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Oh how do I get verified? Happy to do that. I’ll see if I can find out more in the help section but wanted to ask in case you knew who to message. ViolanteMD 20:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ViolanteMD, there's no formal procedure to verify your qualifications on enwiki. I believe there was once even a dubious proposal to ban all mentions of user credentials. Even if there were a process, for better or worse experts are afforded no extra weight. See WP:EXPERT for a longer explanation. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC

• LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT. "Queer studies" is the term used pretty much universally in academia; "LGBTQ", with or without the plus, is the most common term in English now (and has been for a while — we deliberately waited for this to be clearer and not a temporary blip before making the change on the main article). Yes, "queer" is a reclaimed slur that a few people dislike; a lot of people under 50 had "gay" used as a slur against them more often than "queer", myself included. Now it is a term that is often used as an umbrella descriptor, both to encompass many identities and for people whose identity is more complicated than just "gay" or "lesbian". We had the conversation about whether or not "queer" is unacceptable as an encyclopædic term in the LGBT → LGBTQ move discussion and I don't especially think it needs rehashing. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
• Saw this at WP:CENT. Only commenting to say this should be a discussion among WikiProject members. A move in articlespace has no bearing on the name or scope of a WikiProject, and I don't see why it needs non-member input. So I guess that's my !vote as a +1 to whatever to consensus is among members. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  True, though the scope of the Project has actually included queer since 2006 when the scope was expanded to include Queer studies (in line with the name of the actual academic field) -> Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies! We're a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and queer studies topics. But for some reason the WikiProject title was just never updated since then.

  So arguably, if we're saying that the project should match the name of the field it is scoped to as per WP:LGBTQ#About WP:LGBT, then it has actually enjoyed the support for the inclusion of Queer for the past 18 years. Raladic (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1 to whatever to consensus is among members I agree with this. Per the WP:WikiProject Council/Guide guideline, a WikiProject is "a group of editors interested in collaborating on a specific topic", and that group defines the scope of the WikiProject. Anyone is welcome to start collaborating at any time; there is no need to formally become a member. But, because this was advertised at WP:CENT, there are several editors whose !vote is their only ever edit to WT:LGBT, and I would invite the closer to consider how much weight that should be given per the above guideline.--Trystan (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBT (status quo). Anecdotally speaking, this is far and away the most common acronym in verbal conversations. Useight (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"queer" is the most popular term for the concept

• Queer

1. "Queer" is the most popular term for the concept by Google Books Ngram Viewer. The majority of arguments here are based on popularity and say that LGBTQ is more popular than LGBT, which is true, but "queer" is much more popular than LGBTQ by all identified metrics.
2. Wikipedia has always used the term "queer" and "LGBT" interchangeably. For example, since 2002 "queer community" has referred to "LGBTQ community", which demonstrates that Wikipedia editors never distinguished the concepts.
3. We do not even have a Wikipedia article for the concept "queer", because LGBTQ equivalents have always been sufficient to communicate everything that any editor has wanted to say. The article titled "queer" is about the term, not the concept. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and people are coming to the article for information about the social context of the queer gender and sexual identity, not for etymological information that "queer" meant "odd" in the 16th century or that it was a slur until the 1990s. We have articles for the other parts of L,G,B, and T, which are gay men, lesbian, bisexuality, and transgender, but no equivalent for "queer". Can someone please prove me wrong by linking to the comparable article which describes queer people, queer community, or queer identity? We should do the following moves to combine the top-level titles for LGBTQ and queer then move our best content on the subject to that location. LGBT and LGBTQ should both be merged to just "queer".
   1. queer → queer (term)
   2. LGBTQ → LGBTQ (term)
   3. (any of the top LGBTQ articles, like LGBTQ rights or LGBTQ community) → queer
4. The title of the Wikipedia article which is the topic of this WikiProject is "queer studies".

Bluerasberry (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

1. You forgot to subtract articles using queer without LGBT or LGBTQ mentioned, which shows it's much closer as the terms are often used in the same texts - ngram shows that queer is not used more in isolation, it often co-occurs with LGBT or LGBTQ (or any of the other permutations of the initialism).
2. Yes, but we decided to use LGBTQ as the article titles and the queer equivalents redirect to those articles that is the most common terms used by RS and people both within the community, as well as more colloquially - you don't hear Presidents talking about the queer community or queer rights, but rather they use the LGBTQ(IA+) community, or LGBTQ rights as the term, so it would be misleading if we suddenly changed articles without following the data.
3. Queer is both an identity, as well as an umbrella term, the article at Queer can be expanded on the identity part, but that doesn't mean we don't already have an article on it. Many people identify as queer not strictly as the identity, but as the umbrella and both are valid and shouldn't be invalidated or othered. Also note that Your proposal to separate the article into a "LGBTQ (term)" concept was already attempted last year and was declined in Talk:LGBTQ/Archive_3#Requested_move_20_October_2023 this RM discussion from last year, where someone suggested to move it to "LGBT (initialism)", basically the same that you are proposing. As I already pointed out in point 2 - the common term is LGBTQ, for example LGBTQ rights vs queer rights, LGBTQ community vs queer community, and so on.
4. Yes, but this WikiProject is not just about the scholarly field of Queer studies, but also the social aspects of the LGBTQ community, so again, we use the overall common term used externally and internally and even the lead sentence at queer studies shows it is used interchangably with LGBTQ studies - Queer studies, sexual diversity studies, or LGBTQ studies is the study of topics relating to....

Raladic (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raladic here, mainly because I think cis-het readers — and especially second language readers — will understand LGBTQ+ more readily than Queer, which is more of an in-group term, I think. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well put, @Raladic. Lewisguile (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources say "queer" without saying "LGBTQ"; the reverse does not happen

1. You compare LGBTQ to (queer - LGBTQ), but shouldn't the comparison be (LGBTQ-queer) versus (queer-LGBTQ)? Sources say "queer" without saying LGBTQ, but there are no sources which use LGBTQ without also using queer. Queer is the most common ngram term, right?
2. You say "we decided to use LGBTQ as the article titles", but you know that I missed the the move discussion comment period, as you have joined me in my attempts to appeal with asking the closing admin, speedy renaming of thousands of articles based on the original move discussion, my examination of sources for the "queer" article, and my late comments on the LGBTQ page. In all of those discussions, yes, you have made me aware that I missed the comment period of the original move discussion. I get that part. I am arguing that 1) queer much more popular than LGBTQ and 2) Wikipedia uses queer/LGBTQ interchangably. It would make me delighted if someone showed evidence of me being incorrect, and I do not consider that recent move discussion that I missed as evidence.
3. I disagree, the talk page of the queer article establishes that the article is for etymology, as with Talk:Queer/Archive_2#Italicisation_of_'queer'. The article is designed for discussion of the term, and is not the place for identity discussion. From the move discussion you linked, Talk:LGBTQ/Archive_3#Requested_move_20_October_2023, I do not read the consensus as being opposed to the move, just that people are opposed to making changes before the new article is established. It seems that @Maplestrip: already drafted what I was imagining at User:Maplestrip/LGBT, which I think is a great outline of what needs to be at LGBTQ/queer.
4. "Queer community" is a lot more common than "LGBTQ community", this is what we are discussing. I would like someone to show evidence otherwise, if I am mistaken.

Bluerasberry (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re 1) the math on ngrams is a little funky where if you use just "LGBTQ" it doesn't actually include sub-ordinates, which is why you need to (technically) first do an addition of "LGBT+LGBTQ+LGBTI+LGBTQIA+...." if you wanted it to queer accurately. I don't dispute that the term queer is quite common, I just tried to make the point that the term often co-occurs alongside one of the variation of LGBT.

Re 2/3/4 (as the argument goes a bit hand in hand) - I personally don't disagree that we as community members, not just talking about the editing community, but also as a member of the queer community myself, that if I'm talking about my community will use them often interchangeably (though more often in those cases fully to LGBTQIA+ as I prefer explicit inclusion of the letters and do not like to just be a "+" myself, being one of the "A"s of LGBTQIA (and incidentally I'm the author of the article on Aromanticism, so there's that), but I do use use queer community often. But also, externally, I am aware of several policies, including at governments or workplaces, where strong encouragement of using "LGBTQ...." is used to address the community, which I think is often done linguistically for whatever their motivations may be, which we don't have to question, so I don't think we could just go and appear to lead the charge in Wikipedia and retitle our main central article of LGBTQ (and its subordinate many articles) to use queer instead. For the Wikiproject, I wouldn't be fully opposed to queer personally, but I think for recognizability of people who are not aware of the interchangable nature and use with LGBTQ(+), I think if we have the Wikiproject match (with the addition of the + for the liberty that project space titling gives us over article space) the article, it will be easier for some editors who may not be as involved as some of us are, since we do want to encourage editors with all sorts of experience. (Hope this all made some sense to provide insight into my thinking) Raladic (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

(Newcomer, still exploring/wandering, not planning on putting in an opinion here, but this discussion caught my eye.)

Ngrams math doesn't appear to take co-occurances into consideration. So if you're adding/subtracting, you're adding/subtracting the total occurrences available, not from a subset. (I couldn't find a way to manage broad co-occurances.) For the data from above, LGBTQ+LGBT+(queer-[LGBTQ]-[LGBT]) is the same as just entering queer. The lines are the same. 173.73.134.222 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBTQ+ (at least) - I largely agree with Purplewowies above and would prefer LGBTQIA+ or perhaps a version including 2S. I realize those longer versions are not likely to receive anything close to consensus for now. However, as someone whose identity falls outside the four-letter version, I strongly disagree with those who said that LGBT already includes everyone, and including Q+ has become common in RS. LadyofShalott 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ > LGBTQ+ > LGBT > LGBT+ - "LGBTQ" is succinct, and fits with the move of the LGBT page to LGBTQ. I'm not sure if the + being in the name is entirely necessary, but I would be fine with it as well. LGBT is the older, less preferred version of the acronym nowadays, and LGBT+ just sounds a bit strange, since most people don't say that.

Ultimately, I don't have strong opinions as to which one I prefer, but I know others might think differently. 2601:246:5C80:65F0:DC75:D72A:B7E2:91C3 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Queer so as to render "Queer Studies". While it might have been a slur once, the term has been reclaimed and repurposed, and now does a much better job of covering the idea of sexual and gender diversity than the now lengthening lettersoup approach. The trouble with the lettersoup is that to do it justice, and include all relevant groups, the acronym grows very long. For example, LGBTQIA+ is notably missing 2s (two spirit). I understand and appreciate the desire to be fully inclusive, but enumeration of all possibilities eventually results in something unwieldy. While that's more of an issue in everyday speech, and Wikipedia is not frequently a spoken medium, that's not to say that Wikipedia is never a spoken medium, or that the rules of concision should not apply to the written word. Instead of the lettersoup approach, let's use the already extant term which encompasses that entire span of diversity. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  2S is slightly controversial, and the + (and maybe the Q) is intended to include everything else, just like the rainbow flag. Anecdotally, "LGBT..." is more recognizable than "Queer". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  2S is also very specific to North America; including two-spirit people in the acronym would be largely unrecognisable to English-language readers in most of the world. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBTQ+ or Queer as in queer studies. Queer is the generally accepted academic term, and LGBTQ has increased in popularity over time to accommodate members of our community who do not neatly fit in the LGBT bracket. I think the + provides some future-proofing as well, so we're not having to update the title every few years when new letters get added. On a personal note, I identify as queer and I do not understand why LGB is able to get three letters but we assume T as able to single-handedly cover the vast diversity of gender identities within the community. Q provides that extra level of inclusion for community members who do not necessarily identify as "transitioning", because some of us have not transitioned so much as we are just existing outside of any pre-defined boxes of gender. Mintopop (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  T stands for just "transgender", not "transitioning" or "everything not mentioned". That said, I agree with your LGBTQ+ reasoning. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Right, the "trans" part of "transgender" is typically in reference to the transitioning process or the process of moving from one (typically assigned) gender to another. That is not a label everyone can identify under, because it implies a movement from one form to another. For some of us, we are just queer :) Mintopop (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  The T also can't be said to stand for intersex, ace/aro, etc, and B may or may not include pan people, depending on who you ask. So LGBT does specifically exclude people, even with it's broadest reading. You'd at least need a + in there if you aren't also adding the Q. Lewisguile (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• LGBTQ > LGBTQ+ > LGBT > LGBT+ as per Google Books Ngram's ordering to conform with WP:COMMONNAME. As per Raladic, I oppose titling the WikiProject as "Queer studies". BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ+ > LGBTQ > LGBT+ > LGBT, i think queer has been reclaimed enough, though i am part of the younger generation. In general, if sourcing is using it, we should be up with the times. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• LGBTQ per Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024 and Portal talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 8 September 2024. Good luck to the closer sorting out this mess. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 05:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• I support Queer Studies. The google graphs above were particularly convincing for me, and I am generally more fond of it as an umbrella term personally. Queer studies is also the name of our article on this subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Other Comments

• To prevent the request from getting too lengthy or unconsciously biased, I'll briefly summarize the arguments I'm aware of in favor of each:

• LGBT: the status quo and traditional term. Describes the historical groups in the Anglosphere. Is concise. Does not include a reclaimed slur.
• LGBTQ: now the most common term per Google Scholar and Ngrams. Can be considered more inclusive due to the Q including those who identify as queer and questioning. Affirms a once negative term as something good and to be embraced.
• LGBT+: The plus includes all people falling under the broad umbrella of gender and sexual minorities, rather than just those identifying as queer. It does not include a reclaimed slur, which could be alienating to those who remember it as a slur.
• LGBTQ+: This lists the most groups. The plus includes all people falling under the broad umbrella of gender and sexual minorities and the Q makes explicit queer and questioning are included. Affirms a once negative term as something good and to be embraced.

Sincerely, Dilettante 16:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Also note that while many style guides prefer Q+, GNgrams does not differentiate between Q+ and Q. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts about renaming LGBT to LGBTQ for different reasons. On one hand, I understand that LGBTQ is more used than LGBT currently as it would be more inclusive towards anyone who are part of the umbrella and with the "studies" that shows that LGBTQ is common than LGBT. But on the other hand, there are some :

• LGBT has a lot of acronyms so reading an article where LGBT and other similar acronyms like LGBTQ, LGBT+, LGBTQ+ etc. Appearing in the same sentence can be confusing to some. Not to mention some Wikipedia pages still uses the four letter acronym such as Portal:LGBT, Timeline of LGBT history, List of LGBT rights activists etc.
• LGBT/LGB has been around longer than other acronyms and almost all of the terms have the same four letters in them.
• As for data and studies for which acronym is more common is not always reliable, for example a quick google search for "lgbt" has around 530,000,000 results while "lgbtq" has around 383,000,000 results. The Ngram for the terms is not really reliable as both LGBT/LGBTQ in all caps and lgbt/lgbtq in small caps have different results on which term is more commonly used.

Imo, I feel like keeping LGBT as the title is fine the way it is but I also agree with LGBTQ+ being the title would be better if you to be more inclusive. LGBT/LGBTQ+ or anything similar could also work as a title if it were possible. Mangolemonz (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC) — Mangolemonz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Mangolemonz If you don't mind me asking, how did you find this discussion? You've done nothing wrong even if this was linked from an external site, but I will have to place a message on top providing an overviewof the rules if that is the case. If you just monitor this page or came from Talk:LGBT, feel free to ignore. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

See [6] Sincerely, Dilettante 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually it can as someone pointed out in the initial move. And I linked it above in my vote.

• Here is the differentiated ngram between the 4 terms - LGBT (without +), LGBTQ (without +), LGBT+ and LGBTQ+.

It shows that LGBTQ and LGBTQ+ have been on a steep upwards trend. It shows that LGTQ has been on a downward since 2015, and that LGBT+ has shown a very small adoption (likely by people that oppose the Q).

• Here is the agnostic ngram, which will have LGBTQ versus LGBT ignoring whether they use + or not. This one shows that LGBT has been going downwards since 2017 and LGBTQ has overtaken it in 2019 and continues with a much steeper rise.

Raladic (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Notifying WP:CENT and Talk:LGBTQ. Feel free to add others. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
• The Move Review of LGBT -> LGBTQ was just closed as endorsed by an uninvolved admin experienced user: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#c-Paine_Ellsworth-20240909222700-LGBTQ_(closed), affirming that proper procedures were followed in line with our policies to support the data that LGBTQ is now the WP:COMMONNAME for us. So just adding this as a further note here for the closer of this to consider. Raladic (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Small correction: the closer is not an admin. Nardog (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ah my bad, thanks for the correction, struck and corrected inline. Raladic (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Raladic, where did the closer say it's now the common name? Valereee (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say the closer of the MR said so, I said (or tried to say) that the close of the MR affirmed that proper procedures were followed in the original Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024 RM, which itself centered on the policy for the move on WP:COMMONNAME, which is why the move happened to begin with.

  Apologies if that sentence is a mouthful (my teachers always told me to make shorter sentences, but my brain is wired to produce long long sentences, so sometimes it can get hard for people to follow my train of thought). Raladic (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, just wanted to make sure you weren't arguing that the endorsement of the close didn't mean the term was now the common name. Valereee (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The endorsement of the close means that the original RM outcome stands, which was based on a consensus that LGBTQ is the common name.--Trystan (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  In regards to this article, yes. Don't get me wrong, here, for the record I have zero opinion on what the commonname for all of Wikipedia is. My opinion only has to do with whether this RM means every use of the term needs to therefore also change. That needs broader input. Valereee (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• The related portal - Portal:LGBTQ has been renamed, following the separate Portal talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 8 September 2024 move discussion at the portal that just concluded and was closed by an admin, who has completed the portal move. Raladic (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  And I think between that and Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024 that there really isn't a need to relitigate this for the third time. We should be going for WP:CONSISTENT names to avoid confusion. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

On capitalization of Studies

If my experience and memory serve, the convention for WikiProject names is to use sentence case after "WP:WikiProject", as in WP:WikiProject Military history. So I don't understand why this proposal has capitalized "Studies" in it. Accident? Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That was a mistake (one I just repeated on another page today, at that). The proposed move would not affect the capitalization of studies, which should be lowercase. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dilettante can you please correct the capitalization of 'Studies' in the original post? –Vipz (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sincerely, Dilettante 22:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

cotton ceiling

this article Is currently a stub, but feels like it could use more commentary from the academic sources and less from one event notable people who have used the term once. I'll have a go at reading through the sources and trying to come up at making an article in the next few days but any help would be appreciated. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems like a good idea. I also think many of the sources in the first sentence could be distributed more evenly throughout the article itself. Historyday01 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion; I've worked to make some changes to that effect. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work, the article looks to be in a much better state now. LunaHasArrived (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual#Requested move 15 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of people killed for being transgender#Requested move 19 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of people killed for being transgender#Requested move 19 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Christine and the Queens#Requested move 26 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christine and the Queens#Requested move 26 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Jade Sotomayor

The article about drag performer Jade Sotomayor has been nominated for deletion, if any project members want to weigh in or help improve the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has been kept. Archiving this section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQI+ rights at the United Nations

If there is a reason to maintain the LGBTQI+ rights at the United Nations title (based on this topic), despite the transition from LGBT to LGBTQ, would you like me to stick a "General editors' note" in that article's talk page, like what I did at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory? Best, --Minoa (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We don’t apply naming universally in all cases and some articles have specific titles due to the topic they cover.

The United Nations specifically refer to the community as LGBTQI+, which is why it is the article title, as was also referenced in the talk thread you mentioned.I don’t think we need to add special notes to highlight it as people don’t usually go to rename articles unless there’s a good reason, or if not then they might just open a thread asking, but that particularly topic hasn’t had very many inquiries, so I don’t think it’s necessary, but then again, it probably also doesn’t hurt, so feel free to add it as you feel is right :) Raladic (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Chloe Cole and Do No Harm (organization)

There is a discussion relevant to the wikiproject at Talk:Chloe Cole#Do No Harm about whether to mention Do No Harm funds Cole. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Locomía‎‎

Please see my edit and place the article into an appropriate category, possibly expand on the issue. --Altenmann >talk 17:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject template needs urgent update to fix article assessments

Hi, The categories related to the Wikiproject were moved to match the new LGBTQ+ studies name. Can and admin or someone with template edit permissions please fix the Wikiproject template and complete this Template_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ+_studies#Edit_request,_6_October_2024_-_Update_categories_following_move request to fix the currently broken assessments. CC @Trystan who raised the edit request at the template page. Thanks in advance. Raladic (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Council

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. If you are interested in helping WikiProjects, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

ReportBar and to-do list

I was thinking that it would be useful to have a more compact navigation template for WP:LGBTQ+ project reports, so I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/ReportBar (now located at the top of this page). At the same time, I thought the to-do list (also above) would be perhaps more useful if it focused on active tasks that we could keep up-to-date, rather than mostly being a static summary of WP:LGBTQ+/Editing (notwithstanding that I was the one to gum it up in the first place).

The to-do list now has three dynamic entries for articles needing quality assessment, peer review requests, and articles needing expert attention. These should only appear when the relevant category is not empty, and will show the number of pages in the category. I've removed the static entries that linked to reports now listed in the ReportBar, and added one manual task to the list.

Please let me know what you think.--Trystan (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, maybe we also want to dynamically link to the Template:Peer review requests that are currently linked in the WP:LGBTQ+/Alerts already as those are not as commonly tracked by people? Raladic (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That would definitely be more useful, but there isn't a dedicated category for LGBTQ+ studies articles with peer review requests under the new system, so I am not sure how it could be done.

Given that the project-specific peer review process is long since defunct, and unlikely to be revived given the existence of a centralized WP:Peer review process, it would make sense to deprecate the peer-review parameter in the {{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} project banner entirely.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, so I guess we can't have it a dynamic list and only use what the Bot detects with the venn diagram of the generic peer review and the article being tagged for WP:LGBTQ+ as it lists it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Article alerts#Peer reviews page, so I guess we could only place a static link to that section. Raladic (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Trans Kids Deserve Better for review

Hello everyone, several of us have created the draft of an article about the youth trans rights organization Trans Kids Deserve Better. Since the article describes an organization that has been notable on media during last several days, I think it's worth an urgent review. Antitransphobe (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ is hiring!

Wikimedia LGBT+ is hiring for an Executive director and for a Membership coordinator. More information at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+/Hiring — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity and Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexual orientation

I recently concluded a conversation on Talk:Elagabalus#Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors about the inclusion of LGBTQ categories on their page even though their gender identity and orientation are disputed. This idea was rejected because Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity is already listed on the article, but that editor suggested that another category could be created for disputed sexualities. I was wondering if this met WP:CATLGBT or if it would be inappropriate to carry over this type of historical interpretation. This category would not be used to describe living or recently deceased people, only historical figures who were not able to come out. Rylee Amelia (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea in principle. It makes sense and helps group things together, and it neatly avoids debates about whether an LGBTQ category should be applied at all. Lewisguile (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I just created the Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality. Feel free to expand it if you'd like! Rylee Amelia (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the category is useful and support its application, but it will likely be necessary to get consensus to change the final paragraph of WP:CATLGBT if it is to survive. That advice in my view only makes sense when applied to BLPs, but the wording unfortunately does not reflect that.

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity barely survived a deletion proposal a few years ago, so there is some hope, but unfortunately a fair number of editors do not seem to recognize the benefit of making it possible to find historical individuals on this basis, despite it being defining for many of them.--Trystan (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already ran into problems with people reverting my edits and citing WP:OR and claiming these are fringe theories. I'm not sure what type of category discussion would need to be opened, whether it be nominated for deletion or some form of reclassification? Rylee Amelia (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting a couple days and seeing if someone wants to challenge the category itself. If not, it isn't reasonable for what appears to be primarily a single editor to argue against use of the category on articles where there are extensive, well-sourced subsections (and sometimes entire subarticles) discussing the subject's orientation.--Trystan (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. That section in WP:CATLGBT should clearly only apply to BLPs. The wording is also borderline offensive and seems to be quite outdated—e.g., allegations and suspected suggest being described as even possibly LGBTQ is a slur/bad thing.

It would be much better to refocus that section on not saying things that are untrue/not verifiable, including their gender identity or sexuality, and to leave a caveat for long-dead/historical figures to be grouped under a category such as the one mentioned above. And we should temove language such as suspected and alleged while we're at it.

If anyone raises this on the relevant talk page, I will support changing the wording. It seems very unfortunate as is. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I've proposed a change.--Trystan (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Seen and supported. Lewisguile (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The same happened with me in Edward II of England yet his talk page still shows this project tagged. Other wikipedias also categorize him as LGBT. GustaPapp (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely a good example that shows the need for the new category. It's one of the main defining aspects of Edward II's treatment in reliable sources and is discussed at length in his article, but was captured nowhere in the categories.--Trystan (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

People have been talking about his sexuality for decades. Madness. Lewisguile (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The article on Henry Benedict Stuart covers his homosexuality and mentions a number of his lovers by name. The categories do not even mention his sexuality. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that editors propagating this category make proposals on talk pages to generate consensus, especially on the articles for high-profile figures or vital articles. I'm also concerned the scope of the category may be overly vague: at least, I don't think it is a good idea to conceive of it at its maximum logical scope (i.e. inclusion of any figure upon any mention of potential non-heteronormativity in the article) Remsense ‥ 论 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think judicial application is a good idea. I.e., those articles with well-sourced subsections (or sub-articles) discussing the subject's sexuality, such that there was a clear deficiency in the applied categories not covering a significant aspect of the topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that's problematic and potentially a fundamental disservice to the concept. Categories should have clear criteria, and overbroad categories cease to be defining and cease to be meaningful altogether. Have we forgotten how diverse sexuality and identity are? Why are we smashing every historical example that falls through a sieve together into two piles? Remsense ‥ 论 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"inclusion of any figure upon any mention of potential non-heteronormativity in the article"

Well, it's about what the RSes say, isn't it? If it's notable enough to get a significant subsection on a page, then it's notable enough for a category.

I don't see any realistic harm, anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't fashion workable categories out of those minima; those categories get deleted for being worthless and counterproductive. See the "defining" link above: "no harm in it" is not a compelling argument, nor one borne out by experience. Given the issues I've brought up, I'd just as easily insist there's no harm in not doing it. Remsense ‥ 论 07:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I should have been clearer; it was early morning.

In this case, we were previously discussing the Edward II article, in which his sexuality is discussed in the lede (in comparative detail, in fact), but the subject itself is buried in a subsection. I didn't mean to imply that a maximalist approach should be taken for all articles, nor is anyone else (I hope). I was still talking about that article but I now see that other articles had also been mentioned which I didn't notice. I haven't checked those specifically to see if it's a defining category.

Either way, if there's disagreement about a category added as per WP:BEBOLD, it's relatively straightforward to remove it again and this will likely generate more discussion than a new topic on a talk page will. And as per WP:DEFINING, an article can always be added to a list if people disagree about adding it to a category, so there's an easy solution if consensus can't be reached. Lewisguile (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Feedback Re: using former name for well known trans poet/academic Stephanie Burt

Hello -- was hoping to get a bit more feedback on this Talk page request about including Stephanie Burt's former name. Thank you for your assistance. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit a thon?

Hi everyone. I see edit-a-thons for a lot of topics around, usually in regards to female biographies. Is there one coming up for LGBTQ+ pages? If not, would it be possible to create an edit a thon for LGBTQ+ pages? Amethystloucks (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:Wiki Loves Pride, which is an ongoing yearly campaign to improve LGBTQ+ articles.

Pinging @Another Believer who spearheads that one to see if maybe we can have an edit-a-thon under that banner as you proposed :) Raladic (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! Amethystloucks (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Improvement Request for LGBTQ+ media

Hello all,

LGBTQ+ media could use some love, particularly with globalizing the article's focus. It could also use some a description of the historical change in media representation and the effects of that. Many of the sources (Google Books) are also all f'd up and could deffo use replacing. I'm certain that there are other issues as well.

Add a little or a lot; anything helps, especially because small edits can provide jumping-off points for other improvements.

Thanks all!

Happy to see what everyone does!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 04:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Reel Affirmations

Reel Affirmations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)