Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject

LGBTQ+ studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingAlerts AlertsShowcase Showcase
More information To-do list: ...
Close

Discussion regarding a naming convention for the titles of articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country

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: not moved. Consensus is that "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law" is the most concise and clear title. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 16:09, 25 April 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 law 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:

The naming convention for the titles of 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 law 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, 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 also be further 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:

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) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 20:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  • "Anti-LGBTQ law in [Country]" per proposal. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  • "Anti-LGBTQ law in [Country]". There can be the cases of multiple laws (not just one, unlike the [Country] anti-LGBTQ law) bundling together as anti-LGBTQ. LS8 (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law". Firstly, all of these articles are about a single piece of legislation, while the other titles would suggest that the articles are about law in general that is anti-LGBTQ (if there were multiple anti-LGBTQ laws in a given country, then I'd be fine with an article about them all with such a title). The word law (1.1.) can refer to a body of law in general. Secondly, these aren't about nationalities, these are about countries. For example, the word Russian (1.) can mean of or pertaining to Russia. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law". For me, the current titles are more WP:CONCISE, easier to parse and avoid the need to add a disambiguator on "Georgia (country)" so they are a better fit as article titles. I don't really see the consistency argument since, as Kovcszaln6 says, articles on laws in these countries are not the same thing as articles on rights, and the titles are already consistent with each other. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
@Amakuru: avoid the need to add a disambiguator on "Georgia (country)"" For that particular article, the renamed title could simply be Anti-LGBTQ law in Georgia, if that is an issue for you. I simply thought that it would be better to rename it to Anti-LGBTQ law in Georgia (country), because that would be consistent with LGBTQ rights in Georgia (country). --Justthefacts (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law". Given that "law" often refers to the general body of rules around a particular subject but in these article titles refers to a particular piece of legislation, it reads more clearly as the latter when written as "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law". -- irn (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
@Irn: Either format has the word "law" in the titles. In the English language, "law" can refer to both "a particular piece of legislation" or "a general body of rules around particular subject". --Justthefacts (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Correct. The word "law" has multiple meanings in English, and it reads more clearly as the desired meaning (a particular piece of legislation) when written as "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law". -- irn (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Russian law, Hungarian law, etc. usually redirect to the corresponding Law of Country article. English law describes the entire common law legal system of England and Wales, and the term has other meanings, including other bodies of law and several specific laws. Articles like Canadian labour law and Japanese labour law describe a body of law concerning a particular issue in the respective countries. Canadian copyright law is a redirect to Copyright law of Canada, describing the body of law, not to Copyright Act (Canada), which covers the specific law that currently governs "copyright law" in Canada. "Law" is ambiguous between a single law and a body of law in either format. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree that ambiguity remains. To be honest, I don't like either choice. But if "labour law in Canada" took me to an article about a particular piece of legislation, I would be more surprised than if "Canadian labour law" took me to an article about a particular piece of legislation. -- irn (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I also don't like either choice. No universal alternative immediately springs to mind. In the case of Ghanaian anti-LGBTQ bill, "bill" makes it clear. Maybe we should use "bill", "act", etc. instead, and give up some consistency in favor of precision and clarity. Or perhaps more of these should be titled after the law's official name (or a short version thereof), but some of these are unwieldy and may be referenced by name infrequently in English-language sources. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm more inclined to give up consistency here. I agree with you about "bill" and think that "act" or something along those lines could work. I did notice that the Russian one was previously "Russian gay propaganda law". I don't see any discussion around the move, but that is certainly clearer, and it does seem to reflect how reliable sources refer to it. -- irn (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
I may strike my !vote below… it might be worth landing on a consistent style for articles that need a descriptive title but it may be that case-by-case determinations are better for all or most of these… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@Irn: as @Myceteae: also notes, "[Nationality] Law" almost invariably redirects to "Law of [Country]". See, for example, how Canadian law redirects to Law of Canada or how Russian law redirects to Law of Russia. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Law in Canada and Law in Russia also redirect to Law of Canada and Law of Russia, respectively. -- irn (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • "Anti-LGBTQ law in [Country]". There's not a huge distinction between these forms but this reads 'cleaner' to me and this avoids using Georgian, which is as ambiguous as Georgia. We can't avoid the use of 'Georgia (country)' given the inherent ambiguity and the patchwork of anti-LGBTQ legislation and practices across the United States. Since the adjective form of many countries is also shared by languages, ethnic groups, etc., this form also avoids other awkward or ambiguous phrases we might encounter. Also: For countries with a single notable piece of anti-LGBTQ legislation or cohesive body of law, it might be better to use the name of the bill/law/whatever as the title for the article. If there is limited coverage of the law (or body of law), it may be reasonable to cover this in a section of the LGBTQ rights in "Country" article. In such cases, Anti-LGBTQ law in "Country" can be a redirect to the article about the law or the section of the "LGBTQ rights" article. These decisions can be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the applicable policies and guidelines as applied to the country-specific considerations. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    The need to disambiguate for Georgia is present with both titles. As far as I know, all of the articles listed above are about one specific piece of legislation. All of them are notable, and warrant their own articles. I believe there's no confusion when using adjectives, as I think it's obvious we're talking about the country and not the language/etc. Also, per WP:CONCISE, we shouldn't use the laws' official titles, such as Law On Introducing Changes and Additions to Some Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Matters of Archival Affairs and Restrictions on the Distribution of Illegal Content or Law for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating a Denial of Traditional Family Values. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    The need to disambiguate for Georgia is present with both titles. I know, that's what I meant by We can't avoid the use of 'Georgia (country)'. I could have stated this more clearly, as you did. The nom suggested Georgian anti-LGBTQ law, and I'm saying that won't work. There is potential for confusion when using 'Georgian'. I agree that a law's official name is usually inappropriate. I was merely noting the possibility that a named law, bill, court case, etc. may occasionally have a WP:COMMONNAME name that is more recognizable or otherwise better fulfills the article naming WP:CRITERIA, and that occasionally there may be limited coverage of a country's law that could be incorporated into an "LGBTQ rights" article section. I meant to suggest that we should strive for WP:CONSISTENCY while allowing for country- and article-specific exception and that we should use redirects where appropriate in these situations. I fully support the efforts at consistency and to cover these laws fully. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Prefer Anti-LGBTQ law in Country when necessary but do not force consistency in the use of "law". Consider further workshopping of an appropriate 'default' descriptive title. Upon further consideration and discussion, both of these are undesirable in light of the ambiguity with "law" as well as country- and article-specific considerations. We should not favor consistency over WP:PRECISION, clarity, and accuracy. Where applicable, words like "bill" appropriately describe the topic and make clear that the article does not discuss a body of law. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Anti-LGBTQ law ([Country]) would be my first choice. I would also support using the formal title of the legislation, with with [Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law as a third choice. I don't think "Anti-LGBTQ law in [country]" works. You can have a general body of law in a country, but not a specific piece of legislation. For example, Copyright law of Canada could plausibly be titled Copyright law in Canada, but it would sound very odd to have Copyright Act (Canada) at Copyright Act in Canada. None of the options proposed above made it clear to me these articles are each on a specific piece of legislation. Using parenthetical disambiguation or using the name of the act would make that clear.--Trystan (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    I agree with you, although in regards to the Copyright Act point, Copyright Act is a proper noun (although it seems that the page is a bit messy but alas), whereas all the other names that have been considered (as well as Copyright law of Canada) are not. notadev (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law EXCEPT for Ghana, where it should be Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, as this is an English speaking country and so there is no need for a colloquial title. Other legislation in Ghana (see Category:Law of Ghana) has the short title of the Act as the title of the article. Similarly, other anti-LGBTQ legislation in English speaking countries (for example Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023, or pages under categories such as Category:2025 in LGBTQ history come to mind) have more precise titles (although many of the US bills are actually quite imprecise, as the numbering of bills resets between sessions/convocations). This will also further avoid confusion with other Ghanaian laws which can be characterised as "anti-LGBTQ" (such as the Criminal Offences Act, 1960). As such, I believe that for the Ghanaian article this is the best option to satisfy WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT.
In a similar light, I think that that Anti-LGBTQ law in Hungary alludes, at least to me, to providing a broad overview of all anti-lgbtq law in that country, rather than being the colloquial name for one specific law, and [Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law conveys the subject much better.
Finally, I apologise in advance for being pedantic, but in regards to this I wish to raise a point: 'Consider, for example, that Canadians in Russia can be prosecuted under the Anti-LGBTQ law in Russia, because they are under the Law of Russia, but Russians in Canada cannot be, because they are under the Law of Canada.' I am not a Russian lawyer, but I believe that Article 1.8 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses extends its application extraterritorially, so a Russian in Canada may be prosecuted under it. notadev (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • The actual title of the legislation, which is the most precise, neutral, and recognisable, or, failing that [Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law which more clearly refers to a specific law than the body of anti-LGBTQ legislation in a country. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
    Comment: Wouldn't the former disregard the countries that have multiple anti-LGBTQ laws (usually one anti-LGB, one anti-T; see UK in the past or Hungary) or laws that aren't in an act but placed right into the Penal Code instead? (see Iran's Penal Code) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 10:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
move to the name of the law as clearl NPOV.Psephguru (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
@Psephguru: Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that we move, for example, Kazakh anti-LGBTQ law to The Law On Introducing Changes and Additions to Some Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Matters of Archival Affairs and Restrictions on the Distribution of Illegal Content? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2026 (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.

Article request

I've been working on an article about a dating service and I noticed that we don't have an article on LGBT dating. Does anyone want to change that? There's a few specific services that come to mind like Her (dating app) and Grindr, but I'm sure there's more to the overall subject matter than that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

culture-wise and excluding the obvious point that is sexuality, are there any significant points in LGB dating that set it aside from regular dating? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 07:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Safety is a big one. In several countries gay sex is a crime so people have to be very discreet. Historically, there's terms like friend of dorothy. There's the murder thing (gay panic defense). There's also trans chasers. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more unique aspects to LGBT dating. Another cultural thing would be the concept of U-Haul lesbians. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I've started a basic outline at Draft:LGBT dating if anyone wants to help. I tend to suck at writing leads in particular so I'd appreciate that the most. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
These are all good points. There are also discussions about changing sexual and dating practices in the context of wider cultural views about LGBTQ+ people and the intersection with the HIV epidemic and developments in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Same-sex marriage is a huge topic and recently I've seen increasing discourse about lavender marriages. Depictions of LGBTQ romance in literature, film, and popular culture may also provide fodder although perhaps that's tangential. There's a risk that this article turns into an incoherent hodge-podge, but I tink there is potential here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Polari and Handkerchief code are other related topics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: As a gay guy myself, some of these aspects are how LGBT people got around with surviving and not getting slimed in predominantly anti-queer contexts (e.g. Polari, handkerchief code, friend of dorothy, lavender marriage) nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 14:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
The interactions between LGBT folks in such contexts are created for the purpose of safety and culture, and from what I'm understanding here, "LGBT dating" refers to just people in the LGBT dating each other and some ways they do it. The stuff I listed above are less like the 'dating' or 'lovey-dovey' aspect of it and more like 'LGBTQ+ survival and communication strategies" nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 14:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree, but they are survival strategies that were adopted to enable such relationships. Heterosexual couples do not have to think about such things in the same way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Hmm, so if such an article would be possible (I would propose "Relationships in the LGBTQ community" though, taking into account platonic relationships (e.g. drag mothers and daughters)), Safety and communication can be a section. nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 16:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Homosocialization as a concept already exists. I think that's a distinct topic from LGBT dating. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
'LGBTQ' should definitely be used, per consensus which has been widely implemented in article titles project-wide. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the best title is but we can workshop it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm okay with LGBTQ dating over LGBT dating, but I don't think we should have a broader title than that or we risk running into the synth/indiscriminate mess you seem to be worried about. But I really don't think we'll have this problem if we just write a summary style article on the subject of LGBTQ dating. There's already a draft and I think we can figure out things as we go. I prefer to do than to try to foresee problems we may not even have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I appreciate the thought and effort put into that thinking, I just prefer to deal with things as they come to make sure that effort isn't wasted. 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree that LGBTQ dating is a workable title and I agree with the overall approach to this article. I appreciate your contributions here, which are thoughtful, friendly, and productive—I did not read a hint of antagonism in your responses. ☺️ I prefer to raise potential problems ahead of time, with the goal of avoiding them. I realize that this tendency can come off more negative than I intend and make it sound like object overall, which is not the case here. I see the vision here. I'll take a look at the draft and see if I can contribute there. Thanks for highlighting this content gap! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
From one gay guy to another, I hear that, and I agree. These examples are part of the story but not the whole story, and some may be too tangential to include. A lot has been written about LGBTQ romantic and sexual practices, family styles, attitudes, and associated legal, cultural, and political developments. The article could become WP:INDISCRIMINATE or suffer from WP:SYNTH and that is something to watch out for. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I've submitted Draft:LGBTQ dating for review. I think it's a notable topic worthy of collaboration and development in the main space, if any project members are interested in reviewing or helping to expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Question about Blackwinterwells

Hi. Could someone look at User:Averageuntitleduser/sandbox#Blackwinterwells? It is ready for publishing but the subject's name is not straightforward and I would like guidance. The subject identified as a trans woman and now identifies as cis. But only his most recent given name is known, so I use an older source for the last name. Is this OK? Thanks. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that their last name hasn't changed seems reasonable, though I do have a bit of hesitation on using a self-published Youtube interview with 200 views as the source for this person's gender identity and name. Are there any RS, or even a WP:ABOUTSELF social media bio or website that we could use instead? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I haven't found any RS from 2025 or after. And his Twitter and Instagram don't have anything I think. But I do agree there could be a better source, so I will keep an eye out. Thank you, Wasianpower. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:BASH BACK#Requested move 7 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BASH BACK#Requested move 7 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Itcouldbepossible Talk 10:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for review: United Black Ellument (Black LGBTQ health initiative)

Hi all, I’ve submitted a draft for United Black Ellument, a Dallas-based initiative focused on Black LGBTQ community health and organizing. The draft now includes independent sourcing and has been revised for neutrality and structure in line with AfC standards. Given the topic’s relevance to Black same-gender-loving communities and HIV prevention work, I’d really appreciate a review or any feedback from editors familiar with LGBT-related content. Thank you. JaneFaeJohnson (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's the link for folks looking for it: Draft:United Black Ellument
Giving it a look, I suspect that it's going to run into notability problems under WP:ORGCRIT. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello. A user forbids me from mentioning the existence of inclusive networks for LGBTQ people in sections that deal with the subject, without authorization ([], [], , [], [], []). Yet, mentioning an anti-LGBTQ organization doesn't receive the same treatment (Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in Anglican Communion)... I wonder if this demonstrates neutrality? Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (WikiLove). Nathan B2 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Sirfurboy, as you filed the AfD for the article that User:Nathan B2 is contesting here, would you be able to address this aforementioned WP:FORUMSHOPPING by User:Nathan B2? Note that User:Nathan B2 was not just reverted by me, but by other users (Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D) for adding unsourced synthesis to the project. AnupamTalk 22:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
At least regarding the edits at Lutheranism. There is a discussion on this topic at Talk:Lutheranism#Edits by User:NathanB2. As Johnuniq suggested on your talk page, please follow the WP:dispute resolution process to resolve this content dispute.
@Nathan B2: Please read WP:CANVASS; when alerting noticeboards to an ongoing dispute, editors are expected to leave neutrally worded messages so they will join in on a discussion, rather than make arguments attempting to sway their opinions.
@Anupam: While it is not neutrally worded, removing Nathan B2's previous message to this noticeboard (diff) was not probably necessary—see Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to canvassing. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 22:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you, User:RoxySaunders. The issue with User:Nathan B2 across a host of articles has been WP:COMPETENCE. Despite the fact that talk page discussions were opened at Talk:Lutheranism and Talk:United Methodist Church (by User:Sirfurboy), User:Nathan B2 does not participate there, but resorts to edit warring and forum shopping. AnupamTalk 22:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. The answer is provided on these pages. Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#"Primary"_does_not_mean_"bad". I am certain that we will find a peaceful solution (Nonviolent Communication)! Nathan B2 (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
In addition to RoxySaunders comments, please note that (1) you should alert the user you are discussing when bringing a case to any noticeboard, by placing a message on their talk page, and (2) if you have a concern about neutrality, the correct noticeboard would be WP:NPOVN. Thanks to Anupam for pinging me in here, although it seems that the main issue is not about my edits. As others have said, engaging at the relevant article talk pages is the essential first step. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
This is not a matter of competence, and canvassing is of much lesser concern in comparison to what seems to be Anupam's main accusation. Neither Nathan, nor anyone else should be adding unsourced material to articles. Wikipedia is not a way for editors to promote their POV, and the texts are supposed to reflect the available sources, not our fanfiction and the voices in our heads. Does any of Nathan's sources use the term Inclusive church in this context? Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Pronouns for Moi Renée

Similar to the conversation about Quentin Crisp here within WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, I have a similar question regarding performer Moi Renée, posed on the Talk page: "Pronouns for Renée in this article". I provided more context and examples on the Talk page.

At a high level, RS during Renée's life used he/him; people who knew Renée in non-RS have used she/her. I want to follow MOS:GENDERID and do right by Renée.

Please join the conversation on the talk page with your advice. – RosePickfair 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to Queering Wiki 2026

Queering Wiki 2026

Queering Wiki 2026 will be in Montreal in October 2026. Interested persons are invited. Scholarship applications are open till 30 April.

This is the latest in the annual Queering Wiki conference series which Wikimedia LGBT+ has organized since 2020. While previous conferences which were virtual, this one is in-person. Another development is that Wikimedia LGBT+, after organizing with volunteers since 2012, has had two staff members for one year now.

Goals of this meeting include global networking among LGBT+ Wikimedia editors, coordinating the development of LGBT+ Wikimedia content, and setting strategic priorities for Wikimedia LGBT+ as an institution that represents Wikimedia content and editors to the extent that Wikimedia organizations can even do such a thing.

I am posting here to encourage interested English Wikipedia editors to check out the event and consider applying for participation scholarships. I am a long-term advisor to Wikimedia LGBT+ but not representing it or this conference otherwise. Still, if anyone has any questions, I will respond. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I approve of this logo :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chris Williams (actor, born 1967)#Requested move 25 March 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chris Williams (actor, born 1967)#Requested move 25 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 00:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Maria Reikdal

I came across this situation today while working on Brazilian Figure Skating Championships. Apparently, one of the skaters, Maria Reikdal had (and I apologize if I misspeak; no disrespect intended at all) transitioned from male to female, but has since transitioned back to male. The 2025 junior men’s champion, João Vitor Cavalcanti, is apparently the same skater as the 2021–24 junior women’s champion. Clearly, this subject’s WP article is woefully out of date if true. I would feel more comfortable if an editor more versed in this area could undertake the updating of this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a link to any English-language reliable sources for this information? Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Talk:European Commission v Hungary#Requested move 19 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Commission v Hungary#Requested move 19 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Justthefacts (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

queer suicides

I think there should be a list page for queer suicides (maybe with semi-protection but we'll see), there are quite a few notable ones and its a prevalent topic/issue Goetia (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You mean something like the page Suicide among LGBTQ people? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
yeah basically turning that and some notible trans suicides into a list page like this Goetia (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Ah, I had missed the word "list" (it's been a long day). While we do have various suicide lists (such as list of suicides), it seems to me something better handled by a category. (But then, I feel that about many a list.) While queerness can be linked to reasons for suicide, it's not an inherent link... there are bound to be queer folk who committed suicide for things not linked to their sexuality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
No worries! I think a category sounds good. I don't know If there would be a way to say that the suicides aren't casued be being queer but if we could add that, that would be good. I do think though it is good to understand/remember our deceased and be aware of the high rates of suicide for us (e.g what trevor project and HRC do) Goetia (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Like with categories such as Category:Incidents of violence against men and Category:Incidents of violence against women, they probably should have a notice saying something similar to the mentioned categories: "Incidents of gender-based violence which is committed against persons specifically because they are of the [female/male] gender.". I don't believe they should include people who died by suicide but not because they were queer. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
The more I think about the list-versus-category question, the trickier it gets (and there is of course no rule saying that we can't do both). A category will only gather the notable queer people, folks who have their own pages... and if anything, I'd suspect the notable folks (at least of the modern age) are less likely to be taking that sad path because of their queerness, because a large portion of this tragic statistic is youth who would not have achived notability yet. (There's also the reality that we don't always know the "why".) A list could be populated off of deaths that would not in themselves reach sufficient notability for an article... but that introduces the question of whether tracking such things is encyclopedic, and also perhaps a moral hazard question: does the existence of such a list risk being an encouragement? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
I think using a category is the better choice for this purpose. I think the blurry lines you will touch with the inclusion criteria of such a list are not worth it. I think listings of the tragedies of LGBT suicides as a whole should be handled by a dedicated group, as we as a project wouldn't do a great job on this. If our inclusion criteria would be subjects with articles, then I suppose it's alright, though I would like to see some good editorial work going into the presentation and context. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
To try to reply to all 3 of you
Firstly I agree with Crash, both on having a notice and also I agree in general with using a category
for the other 2 I think we should just be bold we can start with notable suicides and decide where to go from there but I think we should try making this as the more sources that are aware of this sad truth the better (again be bold) Goetia (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Hey I also just noticed that you are Nat Gertler and I'm a huge fan (especially my mum we've read the peanuts stuff together forever now) I love all things comics, although I must admit I'm more of a spawn and superman guy, and its an honour to meet you sir Goetia (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Unregistered cohabitation in Israel

Please add additional reliable sources to this article. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI