Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

By email to WP:VRT the subject requested changes Talk:Margaret_Cruikshank#Request_for_edits_-_article's_subject

I posted to the talk page there with a COI template for them, but perhaps anyone here could address any of their points as this is an LGBT+ biography. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: Responded on talk page Encoded  Talk 💬 22:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

A proposed merger of content from the Trans Men and Transmasculine People Day ("History" section) to the Transmasculine Visibility Month page is located at Talk:Trans Men and Transmasculine People Day#Transmasculine Visibility Month and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Thanks! Abesca (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual diversity in the Huancavilca culture#Requested move 21 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender and sexual minorities in the Ottoman Empire#Requested move 21 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone! There's been some disagreement at Talk:Danmei regarding a statement that "Danmei works ... are typically created by and for heterosexual women." I removed the statement earlier today due to concerns about reliable sourcing and opened a discussion on the talk page so anyone who disagreed could weigh in. User:Hadal then reverted my edit and replied to me on the talk page to suggest that I removed it only because I didn't like the claim. This isn't the case, though I can see in hindsight a few reasons why Hadal assumed it was.

(For fuller context: There was some recent edit warring on the page that I didn't notice until after my edit was reverted, and I only looked at Danmei at all today because one of the edit-warring parties, User:Yingqi365, came to my user talk page to ask me to remove that statement because they had concerns about readers using it to further anti-LGBT agendas. The fact that I removed it after Yingqi365 asked me to could very well have looked to Hadal like I removed it because I also didn't like it, though I did explain to Yingqi365 that I was only removing it because of sourcing concerns and it could be added back in the future.)

In any case, I'm not looking to get into an edit war, so I thought I'd drop a note here (as this is probably the most relevant wikiproject) to see if anyone would mind weighing in, so that we can hopefully reach consensus. Whether the consensus is ultimately to keep the statement or remove it until a more reliable source can be found, it's all good with me – I'd just like the reason to be something other than "someone erroneously assumed I just didn't like it". :) MidnightAlarm (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I've since added more references, and as a general statement: This all started b/c a new user started removing referenced material from an article without real justification, using inflammatory language (User:Yingqi365 calling other editors "malicious"). I had never once edited the article before then. I restored the content b/c it is supported by scholarship, whereas User:Yingqi365 (and later you, after some strange concern-trolling by Yingqi365 on your talk page) kept removing it without supplying a corroborating source. I see that you have a non-trivial edit history at danmei, and have previously removed referenced content relating to heteronormativity in danmei. I think a better approach, rather than attacking the source as an avenue for deletion, would be to take a step back and look at the actual scholarship. Otherwise it does look like the removal is happening only b/c it is disliked.

The article could be expanded w/ one of the Madill sources to better explain that the danmei subculture is distinctly different in the Anglosphere (identifying mostly LGBT vs mostly hetero in China). An argument could be made that the Chinese subculture identifies mostly as hetero in China because they don't want to be targeted by the state; but this should be supported by references, too.

As I said on the talk page, it is also strange that there is a sudden negative interest in a straightforward statement about the danmei audience demographics in the article intro, whereas the article body (which reflects the intro) is ignored. And instead of engaging me on the article talk page, you go straight to this page instead? Can you explain? --Hadal (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

...I'm going to stay out of the actual meat of this discussion, but from what I can tell regarding "And instead of engaging me on the article talk page, you go straight to this page instead?": According to the signature timestamps, this person appears to have engaged you (read: replied to you directly talking about your concerns vs their interpretation) on the article talk page at 19:46 and as part of doing so directly explained at the end of that response that they would drop a note here ("to see if anyone else is interested in weighing in"), something they did after replying to you, at 20:17. I just wanted to detail that sequence of events because, given that they did reply to you prior to coming here (to the point they told you they would come here after in the reply itself) and that this doesn't seem like an attempt at WP:CANVASSING (i.e. the intent seems to be to broaden the participation and not to sway the discussion toward a particular point), this statement that they went "straight to" this WikiProject doesn't make sense to me. *ducks out before I get pulled into the discussion more heavily* - Purplewowies (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As long as we're spending 1200+ characters to split hairs, and yet be totally uninvolved: I never mentioned canvassing; and despite my previous (and concerning, from a NPOV perspective) exchanges with Yingqi365, MidnightAlarm did not directly tag me until their post on this page -- nor was there an attempt to discuss the situation with me prior to Midnight reverting the article. So perhaps this should be made explicit in the context of Midnight describing "recent edit warring that (they) didn't notice". Hadal (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologize if anything I've done seems malicious or like it was done with an intent to mislead or, I don't know, go around you in some way. I haven't been paying attention to the article (or really much of anything on Wikipedia) lately and didn't know anything about your previous exchanges with Yingqi365 prior to you reverting my edit. My initial note on the talk page was genuinely meant as an invitation to discussion. I don't typically expect people to seek me out for one-on-one discussion before they remove an edit I've made; following WP:BOLD, I made the edit that I thought was appropriate, knowing that someone might revert it if they disagreed. And you did, and now here we are.

Anyway, this has all blown up into something I honestly don't have the time, energy, or interest to navigate further. I'm going to bow out of this conversation now. I wish you well. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I said I was staying out of the meat of the discussion (that is, what it's actually about) because I have no opinion on the topic, but I had noticed the sequence of events from taking a quick glance earlier, so I figured I'd ask about it because the tone I was picking up didn't make sense to me with that sequence, so I wanted to lay out what I saw and ask for clarification; I laid out that it didn't seem like canvassing (not trying to suggest you had made an accusation of such) specifically because I was trying to suss out what reason other than that could be the reason for the tone, because I have seen that tone in regards to things like that. Now that I'm picking up a similar tone but directed at me, I think I'll just go on wikibreak. (No, before you say anything, that's not your doing--I was teetering close to wanting to formally do that for awhile and this exchange is suggesting to me that maybe something's off about my tone or approach, so maybe a break for introspection would do me some good.) - Purplewowies (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, you're correct about the sequence of events and that I was looking to broaden the discussion and not sway it towards any particular result. MidnightAlarm (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah and that was warranted. The other main user on there Yingqi365 is well-intentioned, but also... by now is dominating the entire discussion. I made a few comments myself, but I'm not sure how much I want to involve myself further. Historyday01 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I weighed in myself. Historyday01 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Quentin Crisp#WP:NOR - we must follow the sources, not engage in original research and synthe which may be of interest to this project. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)::

It took me a while to disentangle the clear argument from Jimbo Wales's unfortunate attempts to scramble it with random evidence snippets. But the reality is I find the application evidence in favour of she/her pronouns to be extremely disturbing in a way that is relevant to this project. I think for people in this Wikiproject, the significance of using "they identified as a transgender woman" as assessed from quote snippets as a single total argument for pronoun assignment in the face of such a complex body of text discussing the individual's gender identity would be clear. It should be a fundamental axiomatic position here that we can not assign pronouns to a person in contradiction to the ones they self-referred with based on an interpretation of their gender identity as reductive as them saying in a text full of complicated musings on gender identity that they "identified as a trans-woman" without consideration for what those words even meant to them. It's painful to see how much of Quentin's writing on the meaning of their self-identification as a trans-woman being ignored in favour of an extremely simple "Quentin was a trans-woman and trans-women are handled x way" approach.

Jim is right about one thing, not all transgender people, or even transgender women identify with she/her pronouns, or have the same conception of what trans-woman even means to make that assignment trivial from a single statement of identity. In this case, Quentin's identification as a trans-woman is non-trivial, a late life self-examination of identity that as far as I can tell never extended to the pronouns with which Quentin self-referred.

I do not extend this to the degree that there is unambiguous evidence for the use of "he/him" in the article's voice purely because there is a lot going in in the nuance of the discussion of gender in The Last Word. But make no mistake, affirmative evidence that Quentin ever identified, or asked to be identified, with she/her pronouns is necessary to enact the change that was put through with the RFC and that evidence is straightforwardly missing. The RFC voters were making assumptions and did not engage deeply enough with the material.

I am also deeply disturbed by the constant use of editor individual experience to attempt to hard interpret what Quentin "would have wanted" it's assumptive, it's reductive, and at a certain point it's practically speaking over the actual words of Quentin and Ward, who "one might imagine" put a lot of consideration into what they wrote. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Antisymmetricnoise: This thread is only a neutral notification of the linked discussion. To avoid unnecessarily splitting conversation, I'd suggest moving any arguments you want to make onto the article's talk page. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I created the article gender marker over the past couple of days and would like some external review. I plan on expanding the list of countries that allow only changing your marker between M and F, and also adding a section about major cases of legal or societal opposition to documentation reform. However, I haven't done it yet because once I get to writing I tend to do nothing else, which isn't great as a freshman in college. Anyways, let me know what you think of it so far!

DoO2 15:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a discussion here on the feasibility of a DYK set for Trans Day of Visibility. At the moment there are a lot of biographies, so suggestions for non-biographical articles that could either be created or 5x expanded would be welcome. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to bring this project's attention to edits for Aelred of Rievaulx by anonymous users that have repeatedly removed the line about him being a patron saint for LGBTQ people. One of the anonymous users recently deleted the line again & provided a reason: "St. Aelred is not recognized as patron of LGBTQ Christians by the Catholic Church. No such patronage exists."

Assuming this assertion is true, I was under the impression that patron saints can be "unofficially" assigned through popular acclamation. Also, my understanding is that Aelred of Rievaulx is an important figure for LGBTQ people, because he was likely gay. (His sexuality is written about in his article.)

All that being said: I'm a pretty new editor, so I'm not sure how to handle this. I have read that it's not appropriate to get into a back-and-forth edit war. But also, these edits don't feel right. Is it appropriate to ask this project for guidance? Thank you in advance for your help.

EDIT: I just realized that this is discussed a bit on the article's talk page, where someone pointed out that he's recognized (in some official capacity) by the Anglican Church. I would still like to hear the opinions/guidance of experienced editors in this project.

Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 06:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jay McCarroll § Create film article about documentary?. George Ho (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've split this article from the main Jockstrap article. Would appreciate eyes on the article from this WikiProject, thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Great work, I think there's a lot of potential for separate articles on clothing and other symbols in the queer community, and this is a solid example. I made a few copyedits and added links, but this is a good new article. DoO2 23:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I totally agree - I also think there's scope for a separate article on the jock archetype in gay/queer spaces that's separate to the general jock (stereotype) article. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

Wikimedia LGBT+ invites you to the Queer Women in Arts event, organised in collaboration with Art+Feminism. Please register on the event's Meta page to receive the link to the call. See you on 6 March at 16:30 UTC. Best Regards, Vic Sfriso (WMLGBT) (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Hetero-curious 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/2026 March 1 § Hetero-curious until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the LGBTQ migration article. DrThneed (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neuroqueer theory#Split? that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Erotic target location error#Merge proposal that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ashley Davies#Requested move 18 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Karina Buhr#Requested move 11 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The article Straight (2007 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced 3 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. I asked the Project for help in finding sources, because I could find nothing reliable in a Google search. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Could someone take look at at this please? My edit was reverted for being 'poor quality', I don't want to editwar but what it was reverted to is decidedly not in the source. Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_Belgium#The_Sodom_of_the_North_source—blindlynx 16:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion is invited regarding a naming convention for the titles of articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country. Should the naming convention for the titles of such articles be "Anti-LGBTQ in [Country]" or "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law"? Per WP:CONSISTENT, "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics."

This would affect the titles of the following articles at the present time:

• Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia or Russian anti-LGBTQ law
• Anti-LGBTQ law in Hungary or Hungarian anti-LGBTQ law
• Anti-LGBTQ law in Kazakhstan or Kazakh anti-LGBTQ law
• Anti-LGBTQ law in Georgia (country) or Georgian anti-LGBTQ law
• Anti-LGBTQ bill in Ghana or Ghanaian anti-LGBTQ bill

The naming convention and the standard titles for such articles will also affect more articles in future, given, for example, the recent passage of such a law in Senegal.

Per WP:CONSISTENT, I propose that the naming convention for the titles of articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country should be "Anti-LGBTQ in [Country]" as a law affects a particular country, not a nationality. Consider, for example, that Canadians in Russia can be prosecuted under the Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia or Russian anti-LGBTQ law, because they are under the Law of Russia, but Russians in Canada cannot be, because they are under the Law of Canada.

Furthermore, such a naming convention for the titles of all articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country would be also consistent with the existing naming convention for the titles of articles about LGBTQ rights in a particular country, which is "LGBTQ rights in [Country]", which would be further consistent with WP:CONSISTENT.

See, for example:

• LGBTQ rights in Russia, which would be consistent with Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia
• LGBTQ rights in Hungary, which would be consistent with Anti-LGBTQ law in Hungary
• LGBTQ rights in Kazakhstan, which would be consistent with Anti-LGBTQ law in Kazakhstan
• LGBTQ rights in Georgia (country), which would be consistent with Anti-LGBTQ law in Georgia (country)
• LGBTQ rights in Ghana, which would be consistent with Anti-LGBTQ bill in Ghana

Discussion is here due to the multiple articles affected, the need, per WP:CONSISTENT, to adopt a consistent naming convention for the titles of articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country, and the recent passage of such laws in other countries eventually increasing the number of articles affected. Justthefacts (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The clock is ticking for this stub article. I de-prodded it a few weeks ago, but it is a matter of days before it gets nominated for deletion. Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, their newsletter archives seem to be available through various universities, though none that I can access. InfernoHues (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lord Mountbatten#Requested move 10 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Goncharov (meme)#Requested move 18 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Requested move 20 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alongside a related discussion at Talk:Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration#Neutrality of this article is heavily biased. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)