Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 1

The proposed info box:

The thing that strikes me is the word "Transgender" in the top section. The other three are nouns, "Transgender" is firstly an adjective wiktionary:transgender. What do you think of "Transgenderism"?

Also, it seems there should be more in the "Law" section. I can't for the life of me think of what at the moment, but I'll think about it and see what I can come up with.

Overall - very nice work!!! SatyrTN (talk | contribs)

Suggestions for the 'Law' box: Civil Rights, Employment Protection, Something dealing with 'no promo homo' laws. CaveatLector^Talk 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It states in 1971 colorado repealed its sodomy law it actually became effective june 30 of 1972. Article by Bart Barnes of the Washignton Post written 05/31/1972. Plus someone had mention case law. The important one would definitely be lawrence v texas.

That information should go on the specific page you're referring to. Feel free to edit it and fix the info! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Once we get a list going I'll start working --Kylehamilton 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, what needs to be done? i've been working on gay subjects in a very haphazard way for ages now... Aroundthewayboy 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a List of LGBT-related topics.

There are only a couple red-linked topics (some porn star and a list of lesbian actresses). It's an OK place to start, though.

Aroundthewayboy 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help out with this article. I have been doing research for at least 3 years in a variety of related topics.

Atarifreak06 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Category:LGBT stubs may be a place top start is you are looking for an article to expand. - Davodd 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I started rewriting the Men who have sex with men article as it was very poor. I will try to develop it further to include the topics I mentioned in the discussion page of this article. Roger jg 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody want to write an article on Stonewall F.C.? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been getting really confused by the organization of the whole LGBT category (and its subcategories). I wanted to post something about us doing a review of how articles tend to be categorized and maybe do a little cleaning up (I, in no way, would consider doing something so widespread by myself), but I don't know where to post this on the project page. - Rugadh 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the LGBT categorization scheme is a patchwork with no real logical hierarchy. - Davodd 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! Just wanted to direct everyone's attention to this article and event. The Washington State Supreme Court will be handing down their ruling on the same-sex marriage ban in this US state tomorrow (Wednesday, July 26, 2006), so expect quite a few edits to that page and try to keep an eye on it, which I will do, but I'll be away from a computer for most of tomorrow--with the publicity that might come with this decision, there might be hefty vandalism (if people can find the page! It took me a while to surf it out). Thanks! --Rkitko 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

POV notwithstanding (and I tried hard to not include my POV in those articles, but you might want to check me on it for subtle details), all I can say regarding the ruling is "damn." Rkitko 19:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Homosexuality in ancient Greece has been proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece. You may want to comment on the proposal or make any changes to the article that seem appropriate. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I resent that the Pederasty article has been associated with LGBT studies. I resent seeing our flag associated with the practice of pederasty. It is the same as associating the American flag as symbolic of American studies with race-based murders. Pederasty is not part of the GLBT movement or our struggle for equal rights, represented by our rainbow flag. I would like to know who decided that Pederasty should be included in this project, where there was consensus and how to contribute, because I certainly do not wish to see this association. This is not a denial that there are GLBT pederasts, but it is a legitimate wish to not have this practice included as some how integral with our community. Enzedbrit 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto - forcefully! -- SatyrTN 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't people mixing up pederasty and pedophilia here? Pederasty in ancient greece was the closest they got to socially recognised same sex relationships. The subject was then taken up by prominant "gay" writers and thinkers which probably contributed to putting the issue of same sex relations in the public eye. As such, it is part of our history.

Zefrog 11.42, 04 September 2006

Basically I'm trying to get ahold of sources for Twink, but can't find much (a Google search for "twink" brings up a load of porn sites. Nice and all, but not quite what I need right at this moment). Are there any good, reliable LGBT sites around which would have info on this? -- Steel 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a Google search for 'twink "gay slang"' (with the quotation marks) and, while still turning up quite a bit of porn, there's a few nuggets... er, good sites... in there as well :) -- SatyrTN 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, your search did bring up something useful, I can definitely use that. There must be an encyclopedia of all things gay somewhere, though. I'll keep looking I guess. Oh, and I never thought I'd ever get irritated by a Google search bringing up too much porn. -- Steel 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And I have no idea why my link redirects to the Wiki article. It doesn't when you click on it from Google. -- Steel 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after having a closer look I'm concerned about its reliability. Either the Wikipedia article was written from that, or that was written from the Wikipedia article. I'm aware of sites like answers.com copying wiki articles, and this whiffs a bit of that. -- Steel 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure About.com (which is where that link goes to) has an agreement with Wikipedia and that they copy wholesale from here to their site. That's why the two are pretty much identical. SatyrTN (talk | contribs)

That's a bit of a pain. It's like trying to use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia... -- Steel 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that not enough attention has been given here to animal homosexuality. I think it is an integral aspect of this topic, as humans are animals after all, and the subject has been part of the discussion since the ancient Greeks, with animals given as a paragon of what is and is not "natural." Now that the contention that animal sexuality excludes homosexuality has been conclusively refuted, the polemic has shifted and the animal model is again being used for political purposes by those who claim that it may well be natural but that does not make it good. That of course is besides the point, what is important for those of us who are interested in this topic being addressed honestly in the Wikipedia is that we see to it that those species where such behavior has been documented are represented as such, and in sufficient detail so as to . It seems to me that animal sexuality should not be politicized, that censorship of the topic is inherently POV, and that we need to pay attention to prevent that from happening since unfortunately this material often seems to go against what people intuitively accept as valid in animal articles - with the result that it is watered down, distorted or deleted. Haiduc 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add to this WikiProject but I am unsure how exactly to do that other than contributing. I am a graduate student and queer with a focus on butch-femme communities. I would like to help on that topic and others where I can be of assistance.--Mic 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep a close watch on Queer related articles and fact-check using your university's resources, I would say. CaveatLector^Talk 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just joined and I want to stick to areas that are easy for me to fact check. Having graduated from a college a year ago I only have the internet as a readily available source. I plan on working on fixing grammar and spelling errors and expanding some movie items. Will this be enough? Or should I have a larger agenda? It might help noting that I am rather new to editing and I don't want to be too big for my breeches. --Mr Vain 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Grammar and spelling is a great way to start - and if you get interested in an article, feel free to get involved in researching and expanding :) And don't worry about an agenda - the Queer one covers all of us... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks. You may already know about this, but Category:LGBT television series is up at CfD. It was originally placed there as part of a proposed renaming, but has attracted a large number of "delete" votes. I thought that some people here who might not normally keep track of CfD might be interested. (I only came upon the CfD when someone questioned the category's inclusion in Torchwood.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I figure this might be related hopefully not seen as an advertisment or the sort.

Would it be ok to provide info regarding LGBT - actor, actress, artist, musician, writers, professionals or even famous historic figures and stuffs etc. As a way to educate or just to show that LGBT people are every where and comes in all size and shape, so to speak.

I saw a public program on KPBS call "In the Life" which shows a lot of documentry and LGBT people all over America about their coming out stories and issues also general LGBT issues. The last one I saw was this one gay man talking about how after 911, he wanted to help and serve in the army, so he joined in, however had to hide his gay identity, he talked about life in Iraq war front and how later the offical founded out that he's gay from a blog journal he posted and discharged him just like that.

I think it's a great progrem surviving only from people's donation I believe but I'm not sure if it would be helpful to add to this LGBT project. They have a website www.inthelifetv.org if any one what to see if it is what this project is about and related to be add on here.Yajaec 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, never mind, I just found a link of Category:LGBT-related television programs. Thank anyway. cUser:Yajaec|Yajaec]] 18:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could any one tell me how to add on to the LGBT film or tv page?Yajaec 18:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

An LGBT barnstar has been proposed here. Thankyou Ouro. Other thoughts would be welcome. Dev920 (Please vote here) 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was trying to improve this article, but turns out it´s quite hard to completely understand the situation of same-sex civil unions in Brazil (so many different and contradicting court decisions, it´s hard to know what each one means and what we really should therefore write in the article) and it looks like this will need A LOT of research for the article to cover the topic well and to become good enough. I´s sure there are more Brazilians (I´m Brazilian) and people from other Portuguese-speaking contries here, and maybe they wanna help. There are almost no sources in English, but English-speaking people could help a lot, making the writing of the article better and telling us what are the proper law terms in English. Also, I would like to know what should I look for... There are a lot of discussions on the House and Senate available online, and a lot of court rulings on the subject (as you can see, I´m not and don´t pretend to be a specialist in Law, but I find it hard even an specialist would presume this task to be easy).

I´ve been searching on the Internet, and there is a lot of information out there, but I´m not sure what´s relevant and what´s not, and I can´t really grasp all the judicial (is this the proper word?) concepts involved. When I can, I don´t know how to properly translate it. I just started to work on this article, and even if no one helps and it takes a lot of time (I don´t have much free time), I hope one day the article to be worthy of its name. I hope I´m not being too confusing and you understand me! (Sorry for the English mistakes, I´ll be glad if someone point them out so I can learn more) A.Z. 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem - the article seems clear enough that a couple may register a same-sex partnership and be given the same rights as married couples. Am I missing something? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are. To begin with, it is just not true that same-sex couples have the same right than different-sex couples: they can´t get married, they can´t adopt children, etc. The article doesn´t cite sources at all. The article is not updated, it is very badly written. Well, those problems are more than enough to say ir needs a lot of work!

One more problem: it doesn´t say anywhere in the article that "a couple may register a same-sex partnership and be given the same rights as married couples". The fact that by reading the article that´s what you understood is yet another good evidence that the article isn´t good.A.Z. 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, A.Z.- I see you have rewritten the article on the talk page, but aren't confident enough to make the edits on the article itself. I am happy to lend a hand with that tomorrow (it's almost midnight here now). Do you have reference sources we can include? Let me know on my talk page, and I look forward to collaborating with you on this. Jeffpw 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It takes a beady eye to note what rights have not been earned, as opposed to what has. I will copyedit some time later, when you have made the revisions intended above. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It gives me great pleasure to tell you that an article I wrote, James Robert Baker, has now been made a FA. If I am not mistaken, this is the first FA for the LGBT project group. My thanks to Dev for her support of the article through the candidacy process. Jeffpw 12:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Though I should point out that, if Jake Gyllenhaal ever gets round to coming out, I actually got the first unofficial one. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• • LOL! Point taken, Dev! Jeffpw 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Screw my RE essay!

Our priorities, as I see it, are to gain more members, develop the project, and write better articles. I will add WP:LGBTSTUD to the Community portal to get a bit of advertising, and if anyone is interested in working out some sort of newsletter to send out (which we can do by hand right now), we can keep our current members a bit more active.

The Portal needs improvement - at the moment despite Davodd's efforts it's static. Can we agree some kind of internal guideline as to when to change it, how it should look etc.? When we gain new members, it would be good if we could develop several taskforces - I was thinking LGBT History, LGBT Rights, and LGBT Culture, with a possible option of Biographies later. Though this is a moot point if we do not gain more members! I also think that a Collaboration of the Fortnight is something we really ought to get off the ground - it'll improve Wikipedia and get member participation going.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Well, I can think of loads more, but I'm racked with guilt over not doing my work. ;) Does anyone else have any ideas? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rearranged the portal a bit, and updated it. I should go work now... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A week later, and no-one has replied! Sacre bleu! Well, now I have AWB, I'm going to put together a newsletter, and send it out to everyone. It would be nice if I had something to send... Come on, guys, any ideas for improving LGBT articles? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So how about 1) start an LGBT Article of the Week? I don't know how those work, but I suspect it's a "nominate - discuss - vote" procedure. And if I can help writing a newsletter, I'd be glad to. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think given our low membership it would be a better Collaboration of the Fortnight - and there's no point having a voting procedure until we have a critical mass of people who want to nominate articles. Maybe we should nominate articles one by one down the members' list? Or is that not right?

I think a newsletter is a great idea, but as we don't have that much to say in it, I think we might need more a "Newsnote"! We certainly need to inform people about the barnstar, and the new goings on with the portal, so it's worth having one now, I think. I think it might be worth going to Kirill Lokshin and asking him how MILHIST started, to get some idea of how we should grow the wikiproject. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created the newsletter here. Do you have any other ideas before I send it out? I've contacted Kirill, so I'm waiting on him. Is there anything else we can do to get the ball rolling in a small way? Are tehre any templates that need creating, for example? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've sent out the newsletter. I hope that's ok. Kirill replied and suggested that we implement articles assessments and banner tagging. As I was planning to implement this anyway, I think it should be moved to the top of our priorities. Is anyone interested in helping me with this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "banner tagging" adding a "this article is part of wikiproject:LGBT" to article talk pages? Count me in for that. I don't know anything about assessing articles, but I'm willing to learn! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I want to tweak the banner a bit maybe, and then we can get on with it. The 1.0 assessment have an automated assessment thing, so if we join that, that'll save us a great deal of time as well. I've never assessed before either, so I'll guess we'lll just have to try and see what happens! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done assessments through the wiki biography project, and will be happy to help out here. For those who have not done it before, this link can help. It might also be useful for somebody to go to LGBT related articles, check the history for positive editors, and invite them to our project. I should add that while I am happy to participate here, and plan on making this project my focus at Wiki, I am also extremely busy with my humdrum work and a book I am writing. As such, my time on wiki is limited. Jeffpw 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm transgendered and I joined this wikiproject because it is supposed to working to improve LGBT content. That T stands for transgender.

I've spent almost all of the time since I joined considering removing myself from the project. I've also seriously considered tagging the project page {{toofewopinions}} because of its systemic bias against transgendered people and issues. The content of the project page leaves me feeling more out of place than the world outside! What hope do we have of countering systemic bias in wikipedia articles when the project page itself is systemically biased against some of those that it seeks to represent? --AliceJMarkham 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean. The only thing on the project page I can find is that could be considered biased against Transgender is the to-do list. Everything else specifically adds the T, where possible. Where do you feel discriminated aginst? And how can we fix that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speaking only for myself, I think if there is any bias, it is certainly unconscious. Please, Alice, if you see something in this project that you think needs fixing, either speak up, or be bold and make the change yourself. My feeling is that all of us, either L,G, B or T need to support one another, both in the real world and on Wiki. Most of us face enough discrimination already, without discriminating against each other. Jeffpw 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Another approach is to assume that we are all unconsciously biased and one of the things we can do here is to cut through each other's biases. Please contribute as you see fit, leave emotions at the door. Regards, Haiduc 12:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed above to go into article assessment. To this end, I have created the categories neccessary for automatic updating at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team: we now have a Category:LGBT articles by quality, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality log, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality statistics, all of which you may peruse at your leisure. Although I suspect there is some forms of automation I have not yet discovered about this thing (like I swear there's an automatic process for stubs, but can't for the life of me find it), but it gives us a good starting point. As you may see in the chart below, we only have 104 articles tagged with our banner: we need to severely ramp that number up. The banner is {{Template:LGBTProject|class=?}} - either insert an appropriate rating of the article in class, or if you're unsure, just remove it. I'm going to create a separate assessment page and blatently steal some information from other Wikiprojects. Then we can get to work. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

More information LGBTQ+ studies pages by quality, Quality ...

LGBTQ+ studies pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	112
FL	39
GA	673
B	2,230
C	6,661
Start	13,924
Stub	4,771
List	746
Category	8,732
Disambig	44
File	1,016
Portal	29
Project	77
Redirect	2,312
Template	481
NA	8
Assessed	41,855
Unassessed	8
Total	41,863
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 132,929			Ω = 4.69

Close

• Dev, go to the Biography project assessment talk page, and they can give you the info there about the automatic stub/start information. They use ti there to cope with the sheer volume of articles needing assessment. Hope that helps. Jeffpw 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's looks like they're assessing by hand, but bulk tagging with AWB. Looks like we're going to have to do this all by hand. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessent page has been created at the frighteningly orginal Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How often does the statistics page refresh? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to refresh automatically every day at 3:00am UTC - but I'm generally running it myself (I just updated it) from here, because I can't wait :). Btw, MILHIST has over 26,000 articles tagged - I expect us to beat that. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You still think love can beat war?! Haiduc 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for when to add the WP:LGBT banner to articles? I was scolded once for adding the WP:NH banner to too many articles, since I was Googling any article that had the words "New Hampshire" in it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say that it it has an LGBT category on the main page, you can tag it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Is there any way to automatically tag articles that are in the Portal:LGBT? I have started manually doing tagging now, and am overwhelmed by the number of articles that need tagging. Jeffpw 23:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to download AWB to help you tag if you just want to mass tag without assessing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Argument going down at Template:LGBT sidebar - Matt Crypto and another editor insist the rainbow flag is POV and should not be included in the template; I say it's bollocks, because it's THE LGBT symbol. You may wish to give your thoughts. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have created a bisexuality template at Template:Bisexuality topics sidebar. Your thoughts would be welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We've drawn in another 3 members since we began our kickstarting, which isn't bad. I'll create another newsletter next week to let everyone know about our new assessing scheme, and then send it out monthly, I think. I want to create a welcome template, but I'm not sure if we have enough stuff to talk about on it: what does everyone else think? Oh, and WP:COMICS runs a collaboration of the month rather than of the fortnight - do you think this might be better, given our small membership? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I used this invitation box (briefly). Don't know if that will help as a place to start, but there ya go :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will fiddle with that - unless of course, you want to create the template. I seem to be charging in and changing everything myself. If anyone wants to do anything themselves, please go ahead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure - I'll do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template — comments, please! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind if I edit it a bit? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all! Please feel free! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes. If everyone's cool with that, I think we should move it to the mainpage, as SatyrTN has done a fabulous job. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month sounds like a good idea. Haiduc 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. How would you choose the articles? A voting system? Simple nomination by members? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Coin toss? Really, nominate and see what happens. Haiduc 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

K. Will set that one up soon. What would you like to be the first article? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The kitchen sink. I mean the Homosexuality article itself. Material needs to be spun off since it is way oversize - more than 100k last I looked. Basically we need to take entire sections, abstract them, and spin them off into new articles. Haiduc 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe we should then do bisexuality and trangender. Ooh, three months covered already! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Err...make that four months, Dev. The Lesbian article needs some major attention, too, at least as far as referencing goes. Anyway, I think the way we are approaching this is excellent. First, the broad, overarching articles, then the more esoteric ones. I'm more of a follower than a leader, so I'll leave the organizing to others. Just set up some sort of task list (preferably specific), and I'll start diligently working my way down the list. Jeffpw 13:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This project has a main listing in two pages of the Project Directory, under WP:PROJDIR/H#Sociology and under WP:PROJDIR/S#Sexology and Sexuality. Generally, we prefer only one "main" entry, with the other one or more linked to it. Which entry would the members of this project prefer as being the "main" entry for this project? Badbilltucker 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... My opinion is in the Sexuality section. Others? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Same. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Jeffpw 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult one in some ways because transgendered people spend their entire lives trying to explain that it's nothing to do with sex, but for LGB folk, it is, isn't it? :) I guess the question is which one is relevant to all of us, and to me that would be sociology. --AliceJMarkham 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledging the disagreement above, it seems to me that the 3 to 1 vote indicates that sexuality seems to be the preferred choice. I would also note that "Gender Studies" falls under the same heading, so I hope it is realized that "sexuality" in the heading is at least intended to be seen in the broadest possible light. Also, that heading places the project closer to the above referenced "Gender Studies", which is probably the most closely related project we have out there. On the basis of the above, I will place the main heading there provisionally. If, in time, the members of the project decide to change the position of the "main" listing, they are free to do so. However, for the sake of the keeping the individual pages of the directory as short as possible, we will still request that it have only one "main" entry at that time as well. Badbilltucker 15:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing that out, Badbilltucker. You beat me to it by about 2 minutes. I was just reading the article about Human sexuality, and it makes that point very clear. I would also like to add that sexuality encompasses more than simply sex, so I think it is appropriate for us top be listed there, in all aspects of our LGBT identities. Sociology is also a good choice, but not as clearly linked, in my mind. Jeffpw 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Irene Dubois has been nominated for deletion, if any project members want to take a look and/or participate in the AfD discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

New article: Sugar and Spice (drag queens) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect if we have Bisexuality as our CoM, then this definition will be fixed up. But here's what I took from Talk:List of bisexual people:

If it were up to me, I would make each of the above things a possible criterion and suggest that a person could be considered bisexual if two or more of them could be found. Any further thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reliability of sources is a concern with this issue. I'm no expert on LGBT studies, but primary/secondary sources do need assessment for reliability before we add them. --SunStar Net^talk 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally put this on the talkpage:

I still agree with that, really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be "transgender" not "transgendered". Kolindigo (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Language can be transgendered but people cannot. Banjeboi 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One issue with:

A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBTI if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes...

That *might* make sense for LGB, but not for T* (which is not a sexual preference but a gender identity) or I (which is defined medically by anatomy). T* status is not defined by sexual relationships, nor predictive of same. If you mean 'gay', say 'gay' - adding T as if it were a sexual orientation is incorrect in this instance. K7L (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A recent discussion here, led to a proposal of changes or additions to the MOS guideline here, and this has sparked a discussion here for those that may be interested. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes.."

I am having difficulty with this criteria, which is the only part of your guidelines that deals with historical figures.

I've been reading over a hundred artists, writers, actors, directors, producers, etc. figures, primarily from the period 1900-1950. I'm running into many (I'd guess 10-20%) who are categorized as LGBT and only a few who had what you might call established "relationships" with people of the same sex. Some of folks attended parties thrown by a person who was "out" (at least among their peers) and that is the only indication that they were LGBT. Other individuals were identified as gay by a Hollywood tell-all book (that's the only source). Other times, for example, a woman spent her later years (over age 60, say) sharing a house with a female friend and so she is categorized as LGBT.

I'd say that the vast majority (I'm guessing 85-90%) of these cases are not "documented". And only a few of them (for example, John Cage and Merce Cunningham) are what most people would consider "notable".

My only interest here is in correct identification and categorizing. But given the only standard you provide--"documented, notable relationships"--, I'd have to remove quite a few people from categories like Category:LGBT entertainers, Category:Gay actors or Category:Bisexual actors. In fact, for many people who were rumored to have casual, same sex relations, the only documented relationships are their marriages.

I just wanted to check in with the LGBT Project before I start removing people from categories in case this criteria has changed. I foresee some pushback from other editors who object to artists and entertainers who "everyone knows were gay" to be de-categorized and no longer LGBT. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you name some of the specific people you are thinking of removing? I'm wondering if you're seeing "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes" and reading "A deceased person may be categorized and identified as LGBT ONLY if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes" - but the judgment of reliable sources, based on casual relationships, analysis of personal writings, etc. can't simply be discarded. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I say, that statement is the only criteria mentioned so I did read it "only if" because there were not qualifiers or indications that other criteria could be applied.

Since this is work I did a few weeks ago and I've moved on to other topics, no particular articles come to mind. But could you address the three examples I mention above? Because those are taken from specific actors/actresses I came across and that is the extent of their "documentation".

It seems like otherwise it's a judgment call on my part and I'm pretty sure that the WikiProject LGBT studies doesn't want random editors to impose their own judgments on whether some entertainer was gay or not. If documentation or some reliable source is not required, then any editor can apply any label to anyone or remove one. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be that "a historical figure is queer if reliable sources say so" just goes unsaid, since that's compliant with our policy for relying on the sources for pretty much every other subject. I suppose it could possibly be stated outright? Re your examples, could you clarify if this is a shortage of sources on Wikipedia, or if you looked further and the sources are not available? Maybe the WikiProject could help out by maintaining a list of individuals whose sexual orientation could be better sourced, so that project members could hunt down the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think the point of the criteria is that since the subject is deceased, they will no longer be able to confirm or deny their sexuality through statements or deeds, so our categorization of their sexuality must be well-sourced. But I agree that this guideline should be copyedited a bit to make that clear. I think the word "notable" here is confusing, because it makes us think of general Wikipedia notability, as in we don't list every person the subject of an article ever slept with because most of the liaisons would not be notable. But if someone is in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex etc. then it is always going to be "notable" in the context of establishing sexuality. That said, though the simple act of having sex with someone of the same sex doesn't mean that you are gay, the word "relationships" in this criteria may also seem to demand too much, as evidenced by the question that started this section. We would obviously need some strong source(s) establishing that someone was LGBT, but they shouldn't have had to have been in a committed relationship with public house parties. I get that we're trying to not make assumptions based on anecdotal situations ("Wilson says Smith and Jones slept together after the premiere party for their new film") but there are surely many LGBT people in our past who either never found "the one" or were too in the closet to let their relationships be well-publicized.— TAnthony^Talk 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The essay says that birth names "may be woven into an "Early life" section", before giving an example which seems to avoid using a first name at all. ("Smith was born male but never felt this reflected who she was...") Should this include a male forename to clarify how such a name would be "woven in"? Or has the section skipped a bit and moved on to talking about gender in general at that point? --McGeddon (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a poor example, which illustrated an earlier version of the guidelines. While the name and gender they were assigned at birth doesn't always belong in the lede, it's generally acceptable to mention them in the body of the article. A better example would be "Smith was born male and named George, but never felt this reflected who she was..." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There have been disputed edits to Hari Nef concerning her birth name. An IP editor has challenged the current text at Talk:Hari Nef#Birth name. Please check that the article correctly follows the guidance at WP:TRANSNAME and consider whether that guidance should be changed. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that guidance is likely to confuse and maybe even to mislead. It should be brought into better and clearer alignment with the actual policies. DanielRigal (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Some non binary people use they/their as their pronoun. Others use what are for me at least less common terms like e/eir. When writing a bio of a non binary person, if their preferred pronoun is e/eir do I use that in the bio? Not my area of expertise and not sure what wikipedia guidelines are - I'm assuming I use their preferred pronoun but I want to be sure I'm doing it right. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity to the reader, I would suggest avoiding words whose meaning is not widely understood, in favor of the more familiar singular they/them/their, which is gender-neutral and should be acceptable even if it isn't their first choice. (e.g. I prefer he/him/his, but if you refer to me as they/them/their, that's not incorrect or offensive.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey. About my edits on Rosé, Kandy Muse and Denali. As everything in Wikipedia should be based on sources, I find it deeply problematic that drag performers are routinely categorized as LGBT (people/artists/etc.) without mentioning that in the actual text (with reliable sources where they themselves say they are LGBT). I have watched all seasons dozens of times and frankly don't remember any contestant stating on record that they are not LGBT, so this might feel silly for some editors, but still. Sources, sources, sources. This is Wikipedia after all. Any thoughts? -- Puisque (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Drag certainly is connected to LGBTQ culture, but a drag queen absolutely can be straight and cis, and we should not be making assumptions about their sexuality or gender. Only describe them as gay, bi, trans, queer, etc if they themselves do.--Alexandra^IDV 03:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that we still routinely describe living gay people as "openly gay" - shouldn't the default simply be "gay"? How many living people are verified by reliable sources to be gay such that we can describe them as that, but have not admitted it publicly? It reminds me of the phrase "practicing homosexual", as if the more usual state of being is a furtive celibate homosexual. Time to normalize being gay, surely? ----Pontificalibus 07:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree: just use "gay" unless there's some historical context that makes the distinction important for that particular person.--Alexandra^IDV 09:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make this change in the article I was editing. Maybe someone could think about the wording of the first paragraph of the project page, which seems to encourage this wording and is likely the first thing seen by editors looking for guidance on this matter.----Pontificalibus 12:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It is still a meaningful clarification in many historical contexts, such as describing Harvey Milk as "openly gay". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The complication is that it is entirely possible to be gay but not out, and people do have a habit of trying to misuse Wikipedia to out people they perceive to be in that boat without obeying our rule about "not unless they're out". So the language around all of this is tricky and complicated, but there's a genuine reason why that's the case. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles tagged with the {{LGBTProject}} template

• 1000th assessment — Jan 9 2007: Gabriel Rotello (talk) added, as Stub-Class (No-Class)
• 2000th assessment —

I was cleaning up the template section of the Project page when I noticed that there are two stub templates: 1. {{LGBT-stub}}

Created in March 2005.

Usually placed on the article page.

Transcludes article in Category:LGBT stubs.

2. {{LGBTProject | class=Stub}}

Created in August 2006.

Usually placed on the article's talk page.

Transcludes article in Category:Stub-Class LGBT articles.

Is there some way to include the Category:LGBT stubs in Category:Stub-Class LGBT articles? --Tiger Marc^ROAR! 00:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The two are not really related. In any case, I'm currently marking them all using AWB and I'm almost done. I'd prefer to continue to do it by hand, because I can see article that aren't stubs anymore, or articles that need to be deleted, that a bot or an automatic process wouldn't. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? Sorry, it's not clear to me. Tiger Marc^ROAR! 01:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the first one goes on the article page. The second one "lays claim" (not really) to the article as part of the LGBT studies project and assesses the article as "Stub class". There isn't a way (with current wiki software) to tag the article with the new assessment template and have it automatically add the stub to the main page. Hope that helps :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My question wasn't clear. What's the difference between the two cats: Category:LGBT stubs and Category:Stub-Class LGBT articles? Is one LGBT studies versus plain old LGBT? Dev920 says they're not really related. Should I put both on articles? --Tiger Marc^ROAR! 21:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One is a Wikipedia category to help readers identify LGBT stubs. The other is an internal classification we at LGBT studies have put on it in oder to help us identify what needs to be improved. Basically, tag the article itself with LGBT-stub, and the talkpage with LGBTProject. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious if anyone is changing tags from other wikiprojects when adding our tag? For instance, since I'm doing the actors category, I'm running in to WP:WPBIO tags on most of the articles. When I add ours, I review the article (quickly) and make a snap judgment of what class it is. I just add our tag and class - are other people adding their class to, say, the WP:WPBIO tag? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I don't believe in doing WP:BIO's work for them. :) But I'm probably just being cantankerous. I sometimes used to add them when I first started, but now I'm using AWB for tagging a lot, I don't change the other templates as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dev, what's the web address for the tool that updates WPV1 Assessment Log? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should still be http://www.math.ucla.edu/~aoleg/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html . Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet - thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Evan Wolfson article is currently rated a B-Class when I think it is pretty clearly an A-class article. It is sourced, categorized, imaged, balanced, exhaustive, and well-written. --DavidShankBone 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I don't know the process and I've been meaning to ask. When I go through articles, I'll rate them anywhere from Stub to B, but not A. How does an article become A class? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nearly always had my judgement questioned when rating A classes, so I came to the conclusion that I would only give an A rating to a FARCed article of a failed FAC. I think other people though rate things As that are either better than your average GA, or haven't been through the GA process at all and therefore can't be given that rating. I don't know, I've not yet come across an LGBT article that has needed a rating higher than a B! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You guys (and gals) seem to be very up to date with your assessments, have you a backlog of tagging or anything that needs doing?

As i have a bot approved for tagging (User:Reedy Bot) using WP:AWB and Kingbotk's Plugin.

Let me know if you have, or want me to run through your cats to check for them (can do a list compare of tagged articles and the articles in the cats)

Reedy Boy 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you do, just post the cats here, (if they are stub categories, i can auto tag as stub). Reedy Boy 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Reedy Boy! I've been running SatyrBot to traverse the categories within the spectrum of the project to find articles lacking banners. Thanks for the offer and I'll let you know if we run in to anything! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Though we now have the LGBT core topics list, it appears that this bot will be looking for the standardized importance rankings for composing offline releases. I'm afraid the LGBT articles will be at the mercy of a backfill algorithm (which appears to look at the number of links from other articles) unless they are assigned priority/importance by humans. -- Beland 00:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've recently tagged and assessed 5 articles that I happened upon (not following a LGBT list). What do I need to do next, if anything? Do I need to add to a list of some sort? Jacksinterweb (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope - you're pretty much set! You might make sure the articles are in LGBT-related categories, though. I've done one or two of the articles you tagged with Category:LGBT plays. Thanks for your work! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't figured out the cat thing yet (will take a look see what to do) but wanted to make sure I was headed in the right direction before I slapped a tag on more. Now, is there a cat for "Kings that were also queens"? ;) Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL! Try Category:LGBT royalty - but be very careful with that one! Take a look at Talk:James I of England for the controversy that can ensue over using it!

Would you like me to categorize the rest of the articles you recently tagged? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this King was a cross dresser, and his friends called him King Of Sodom...walks like a duc, quacks like a duc...Henry III of France. But alas the cross dressing sodomite is still heterosexual...at least on Wikipedia (a 16th century Larry Craig). I haven't tagged him yet, but take a look see, and you decide if he is straight, or is he gayer than a box of bows. I think you "cat'd" all but Graham Norton show, and this Duc would be the fifth I ran across yesterday. Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, tread carefully... Take a look at the bio on glbtq.com, which claims he was only homosexual by slander, and only transvestite at masked balls. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hence the hestinacy (and question). I'm lazy, but no so lazy as not to tag something I was sure was gay. Jacksinterweb (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any thought given to adding {{Template-Class}}, {{Disambig-Class}}, {{Portal-Class}} or {{Image-Class}} to your assessment scale? This would save {{Non-Article-Class}} for WP pages (like this one). We have recently done a similar thing at WP:VG, and it is becoming really useful for project maintenance. Our template tags non-mainspace pages by namespace too, though it's still a little buggy... Just an idea. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On Carlos Monsiváis's talkpage, another editor outed this recently dead Mexican poet. Although, it appears to be public knowledge as online articles were provided, that's a tacky way of doing this. As the editor, who 5x expanded his article, I humbly request your wikiproject adopt his article, improve it and bring it to a B classed article. I firmly believe it could be FA with copyedits. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm a pretty good Wiki-defender, poor editor in terms of writing and building articles skills but will help whenever I can with article. This man was a leading intellengisia type (the German word for a brainy person who crosses generations). There are at least two articles on his 50s Generation and museum that can be developed per the talkpage and article respectively. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In this article, the article for Jack Harkness is given as an example of an A-Class article, but if you look at Jack Harkness' talk page, its class is given as GA-class. Which is correct? --66.167.244.240 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GA is better than A, so it was probably upgraded after the writing of this assessment description. I'll see about finding a new one for the description :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, your project includes an article on the musician June Millington that has long been classified as a Stub. I have recently expanded the article significantly, so I suggest that someone from the project consider whether it now deserves a better assessment. Given my own work in other projects, I suggest a "C" grade. Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessed to B class - Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made a change to requesting assessments from adding a done check mark to a completed assessment to removing the request and leaving an appropriate edit summary by the assessor. This is in line with other WikiProjects, as there is no need to have years worth of assessments left on the page. I have also tackled the backlog of assessments - years? -and will continue to assess articles requested. Any help in assessments is welcome. I you would like an article assessed by a neutral party, do add your request to the bottom of the list at Requesting an Assessment. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, all. Frankly, and though I'm long in the tooth as far as my Wikipedia age is concerned, I'm surprised to discover that articles in the LGBT project are not getting an assessment as to their overall encyclopaeidic importance. I suggest we need it. (This is an informal proposal to get things, hopefully, rolling. Perhaps a more formal process, i.e. an RfC, may subsequently be needed.) -The Gnome (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Gnome I totally agree. I wrote about it here. Thanks for raising this! Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I can stumble along in French, and I've just made a very rough translation of the French article on this topic; but who in the world thinks this needs to be translated into English? It sounds like it's been copied from an old French encyclopedia; the existing article on Caligula in English Wikipedia is much more extensive and better written. The French article mentions a couple of pop-culture works (in French) that aren't listed in the English version, and gives a paragraph quoted from Suetonius on Caligula's appearance; otherwise, I don't see anything that isn't already covered in English. Can someone provide a raison d'etre for this translation request?  :-) --Textorus 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the stuff you mentioned that isn't in it? : ) Seriously, when I came up with this idea, I didn't realise how poor foreign language articles are. I mean, look at this Vietnamese article of Jake Gyllenhaal. I would grade that a stub here - there, unbelievably, it's a Featured Article. I think they'd be better off translating from us rather than the other way around. But I figure that we can at least take some facts from these articles. I found three sentences in the Oscar Wilde article that weren't in the English version, you've found some stuff. Not much, but it's something.

What I think might be a better bet though, is to find article on LGBT matters that are of that language. Say, improve articles on German homosexuals with information from the German wiki articles on those people - so, improving Manfred Bruns with de:Manfred Bruns, and so on. I figure that might be the way forward. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I getcha. Well I'll see if I can throw in a couple of those things from the French article; I cruise around over there sometimes, so maybe I'll find something else worth translating. You're right, quality seems a little rocky in other languages. The French article "Anglicanism and Homosexuality" talks about the United Church of Canada and the Unitarian-Universalist church--but not a word about any Anglican church anywhere in it!! LOL I may work on that, though I'm really better translating into English. And yeah, the Vietnamese article on Gyllenhall is a trip! But you did a fantastic job on him in English. Bravo! --Textorus 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking through other Wikipedias, and am noticing a number of articles that don't have any equivalent over here, most notably on the Polish encyclopedia. However, none of these articles have any references. Should I list them here anyway, or are we creating more stubs for ourselves that we'll never work on? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a list of basic LGBT topics (and short easily translatable stubs) that can be created on Wikipedias with no current LGBT coverage. Many of the smaller Wikipedias currently have no coverage, and this might galvanise people into action. - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See our core topics. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello :) I'm new and would like to help, so I was wondering what kind of articles are targeted for translation into English, because I could look through the Danish Wiki and try to find some that may be relevant, and the Norwegian Wikis perhaps too.

In general I would also like to ask, if it's ok to just do a straight translation from the foreign-language article into English? I lack further knowledge on the German ones currently on the list, but a straight translation I could work with :)

Lastly, if the original doesn't contain references, I would find it hard to find references. Is it ok to still post the article like that?

Thanks :) Cherryleaf (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adding some information about "Minet" to our article Twink? I don't see anything on the French wikipedia, but the French wiktionary says that a minet is (loosely translated) "Name given to a young boy whose alluring behaviour is similar to that of a cat". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are other articles about same-sex marriage in countries where it is legal not here, like Same-sex marriage in Portugal?--Cattus ^talk 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be a core article in art and culture. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is the overarching article Gay bar which talks about bars catering to LGBT at large, which would probably be higher priority to he included in the list, or both could be added, but it looks like there are 19 right now under art and culture, so there would only be space for one addition right now unless another article is deemed less import in the section to make space for both instead. Raladic (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)