Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 56

A newly-created article on a trans-rights activist has been nominated at AfD; a little love may be able to save it. If anyone is interested, you are welcome to take a look at Marisa Richmond and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisa Richmond. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I created the page and feel that Marisa Richmond does reach notability requirements as a trailblazer in the transgender rights movement and has made history more than once. I do not know her well personally but have kept up with her advocacy career. I am disturbed that it is considered for deletion when figures of less notability have been included on Wikipedia. She has been mentioned in the press several times and in books on transgender rights. I am trying to track down more books she has been mentioned in. She has won several notable national awards in the transgender community. I would hope Wikipedia would not attempt to censor transgender history. --Consciouswanderer (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is another article with an overview of Marisa Richmond's career though it does not include her present and recent accomplishments including being the first LGBTQ person in Tennessee to be appointed to a municipal commission or committee: https://www.outandaboutnashville.com/story/ttpc-president-awarded-baltimore-black-pride#.V0C8GISGpt --Consciouswanderer (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I posted to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisa Richmond page on consideration against deletion of Marisa Richmond.:

The case for notability here is on multiple points but the broader career of being an advocate and being a pioneer in transgender rights including the recent accomplishment of being the first transgender individual to be appointed by a Mayor in Tennessee to a municipal commission/committee/board. Nashville is the state capital and second largest city in the US state of Tennessee as well. There are also several other major mentions in books and articles for Marisa Richmond. An overview of her career in 2008 prior to these recent accomplishmentsvis mentioned in the Wikipedia article is here: https://www.outandaboutnashville.com/story/ttpc-president-awarded-baltimore-black-pride#.V0C8GISGpt. Marisa Richmond has has also been invited to the White House several times for events and has personally been among transgender leaders to meet with President Obama more than once as well as senior Presidential Administration figures. She is on the White House list of transgender leaders to regularly communicate with. As one of the more notable public figures in national US transgender advocacy I feel she reaches the notability level for a Wikipedia article. She is also an academic in this field. US mainstream media has only covered a handful of transgender figures mostly in the Entertainment field on a national level such as Caitlyn Jenner, Laverna Cox etc. This does not mean that others do not exist in the advocacy and academic field or other fields. Consciouswanderer (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Report of subject's appointment to Metro Nashville board has now also been picked up by the Associated Press wire service and is being reported in newspapers in Miami among other places. ^[1] --Consciouswanderer (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Transvestism#Transvestite as an outdated and derogatory term. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places -

• Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, who I had the pleasure of meeting at last night's inaugural Bay Area WikiSalon, has just created a new user category: Category:LGBTQIA_Wikipedians. This a subset of the existing category, Category:LGBT_Wikipedians. Feel free to add yourself if it fits! Funcrunch (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this... really useful? I still technically wouldn't fall under the category. Wouldn't somekind of "Gender non-conforming" or "Non-binary" category be more effective? There's also a strong overlap: a gay person fits both under "LGBT" and "LGBTQIA", so is such a person suggested to pick one or use both? ~Mable (chat) 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Many non-binary and gender-nonconforming people id under the Q or T parts of the acronym, but obviously not all. As to why the new category is a subset of the existing LGBT category, I defer to Checkingfax who created it. (Obviously it would not have been a good idea to simply rename a category that a lot of Wikipedians were already using...) Funcrunch (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I am trying to be helpful, so bear with me. I am trying to bridge a gap that I observed. I am not a category creation or topic expert. You only need to be in one category since these are parent/child.

I can create a category for gender non-conforming, and so on, if that would be helpful and if it does not exist. Several folks would have to put it on their user page to populate the category. Categories are populated by use‍—‌you do not actually put your name into the category. Weird, I know. Is there an initialism for these labels? Would a few users be willing to put them on their user pages?

To make a category exist you have to place it in a higher level category. The one above is called the parent, and the one below is called the child.

If you create a child category, and you add yourself to it you no longer need to be in the parent category. So, then you remove the parent category from your user page (or talk page or article page).

There is no category for Wikipedians from San Francisco. There is a category for Wikipedians from California, and one for Wikipedians from the United States. You can choose to be in the parent one (U.S.) or the child one (Calif.). You do not need to be in both, because U.S. is an umbrella over CA, and CA is under the umbella of U.S.

So, getting, back to your question, Maplestrip, if you picked LGBT Wikipedian that would be the parent of LGBTQIA Wikipedians. If you clicked on the LGBT Wikipedians category you would see that LGBTQIA Wikipedians is a sub-category of LGBT Wikipedians.

If you picked LGBTQIA Wikipedians, that would be a child of LGBT Wikipedians and there would be no need to add the LGBT Wikipedians category and some bean counter will scold you for it sooner or later. LOL. cc to Funcrunch and Maplestrip. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI as I just mentioned to Checkingfax on my talk page, the (older) LGBT category appears to be automatically added to a userpage when you add a userbox that includes it. (Although the Userbox page specifically says that shouldn't be done...) Funcrunch (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I know how categories work; I'm just saying that an LGBTQIA-category would probably not be the optimal child category for the LGBT-category, for the reasons I explained above. U.S. as a parent for Cali makes more sense to me, because putting yourself in the parent category simply means that you aren't specifying where in the United States you are. In this case, I actually suddenly start to feel excluded to both LGBT and LGBTQIA, because putting myself in the former suggests that I am not non-binary, while putting myself in the letter would suggest some portion "QIA" is an accurate description for me. Should I leave the LGBT-category entirely now? ~Mable (chat) 04:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "should", these are user categories, or more accurately user-page categories. Funcrunch chooses to add their userpage. You can do as you wish - including putting your user page in both or neither. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

(Both is somewhat like the "non-diffusing" solution used for some demographic sub-categorization content categories.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC).

It strikes me as backwards-ordered; LGBTQIA should be the parent category, and LGBT should be the child. Otherwise, an A, by joining the LGBTQIA category, automatically gets put into the LGBT category, which is incorrect. The way it's set up is like having US Wikipedians be a child of California Wikipedians, rather than the other way 'round. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a much more logical configuration, though it would still exempt me from all these categories. This category would still have a more narrow scope than LGBT on its own has: don't we currently use "LGBT" as an umbrella term for all non-cis genders and non-het sexualities? ~Mable (chat) 19:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense for LGBTQIA to be the parent category, but I'm not sure if doing that would break the existing category; Checkingfax (who set up LGBTQIA as a good-faith act of allyship) understands how this stuff works better than I do. As far as scope, yes, LGBT is an umbrella term, meant to encompass a variety of non-cis gender identities as well as non-het sexual orientations, from what I understand. LGBTQIA is one of the various expanded acronyms that attempts to more explicitly include non-het or non-cis folks who are not gay, lesbian, bisexual, or binary trans men and women, as well as intersex folks, who can be any sexual orientation or gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I really like the idea of having some more specific categories for gender and sexuality, as this may be useful for future initiatives. I can imagine a group of transgender Wikipedians coming together to improve transgender topics, or a group of asexual people coming together to improve asexual topics. I simply don't believe that this limited category adds anything at all to this. What do intersex and asexual people even have to do with eachother that sets them apart from gay and transgender people? ~Mable (chat) 19:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Some straight, binary trans people have raised the same objections about being included in the LGBT category. But others welcome the inclusion because trans folks, even if they are straight, face much of the same bigotry, hate, violence, and discrimination as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and other non-het people. The same is true of intersex folks, who additionally are often subjected to non-consensual surgery in infancy. Asexual people may face fewer legal and physical challenges, but still suffer from societal expectations that everyone must desire sexual partnership. Funcrunch (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I may not have voiced my question correctly: why would you put asexual people and intersex people in a category together distincting them from gay people and transgender people? If you want to get rid of "LGBT" as a kind of limiting term, wouldn't the following two categories result in a much more useful distinction: Category:Sexually non-conforming Wikipedians and Category:Gender non-conforming Wikipedians.

That being said, I would personally simply create a set of sub-categories for the LGBT category, such as Category:Asexual Wikipedians and Category:Non-binary Wikipedians. This way, the parent category can remain a solid umbrella term that covers all thinkable sexualities and genders. ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the intersex page should show you that intersex is a matter of physical sex characteristics, not gender or sexuality, Mable. It seems to me that, if a new LGBTQIA category is meaningful, it should be a superset of LGBT, not a subset. Trankuility (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend to suddenly ignore intersex entirely - excuse me for that; I have a really difficult time getting my argument across. If I may turn it around, though, could someone explain to me what possible use a "LGBTQIA" could have when used together with the LGBT category? As a maintenance category, they should have some practical use. ~Mable (chat) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There are other options: for example replace the LGBT category with something more wide ranging (even QUILTBAG doesn't cover everything). I can see the matter is fraught with potential difficulties. In other areas user categories have been moved towards "is interested in". While I understand the rationale, I do find that approach a little unfriendly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

MOGAI covers everything afaik. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I do like MOGAI because of its reach, but other than a change in terminology, it doesn't actually change anything about the topic. "is interested in" categories might actually be incredibly useful in this situation. I'd hate to bother gay people about some homosexuality-related collaboration if they just added themselves to the category because they happen to be gay, but it would be very useful to have a category filled with people who are interested in specific LGBT-related topics. ~Mable (chat) 09:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re "people who are interested in specific LGBT-related topics," that's kind of what the members list for this WikiProject is, yes? Funcrunch (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose. My intention was something more specific: Category:Wikipedians interested in asexuality, Category:Wikipedians interested in non-binary gender, Category:Wikipedians interested in intersex topics; etc. Again, though, I am mainly bringing this up because the suggested category doesn't have any such use. ~Mable (chat) 15:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Maplestrip. I changed Category:LBGTQIA Wikipedians to be a child of Category:Wikipedians

Which of the above redlinked Categories would you like me to build out? Cheers! (ccs to Funcrunch, Rich Farmbrough, EvergreenFir, and NatGertler) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, creating the categories and advertising them shouldn't be that difficult (right?), but I'd like there to be somekind of consensus for how we do this. It would be nice if simply had one system in use, rather than a confusing combination of various categorization schemes ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 08:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax - since I am interested in everything, I don't mind! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC).

Hi, Rich Farmbrough. OK, so we now have the following four user page categories:

1. Category:LGBT Wikipedians
2. Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians (per Fæ to avoid alphabet soup and so mainstream can identify it)
3. Category:LGBTQIA Wikipedians
4. Category:Cisgender Wikipedians

They are child categories of Category:Wikipedians

Going forward, per Maplestrip we should probably just make user categories for each type of identity. We can build them all out, and if they are not populated by the time the deletionists find them, then they will be nominated for deletion.

To add yourself to a category, simply copy and paste it into the very bottom of your user page via edit-source. Cheers! (ccs to Funcrunch, EvergreenFir, and NatGertler) {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That certainly overcomes any objections I had (which were purely filing-system oriented.) I do wonder whether there might be a call for some sort of "friends of" category (Category:Wikipedians who embrace the rainbow of the varied genders, sexes, orientations, interests, and expressions thereof that humanity exhibits?) but that's an academic consideration for me, as I'm not one to put categories on my user page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

An "Category:Allies of LGBT people" category sounds fine with me. The new "LGBT+" category is, to me at least, much preferable over the "LGBTQIA" category, though the current set-up still seems impractical to me ^_^; Eh, I'll stop complaining. ~Mable (chat) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group was established we had a meeting at Wikimania to decide on initial details. Pretty much all the above suggestions were discussed, along with a few others. "LGBT+" was the best compromise, especially in the context of an international group where various abbreviations are used in non-English speaking countries. I suggest finding a way to be inclusive rather than making a slightly arbitrary hierarchy that could end up offending some or causing later dispute. In practice the LGBT+ movement has organizations that try not to exclude self-identified minorities and have evolved their definitions and scope for all the reasons mentioned here. In a similar way, Wikipedia should aim to use categories that are meaningful and respectful, the latter especially true when adding categories to users or biographies.

As a postscript, I suggest caution before enthusiastically generating userboxes or user categories that make it possible to publicly harvest lists of sexual minorities from Wikipedia. Analysis of minority groups with a level of anonymity is great and useful, but identifying lists of active users by any sexual or gender classification is problematic can never be reversed once made public. Keep in mind that anonymous users may feel protected by their anonymity, but Wikimedia projects make no guarantee that their anonymity will forever remain protected off-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel that there are much broader issues than terminology: how does changing the acronym open up a group to participation by, and reflection of distinct issues of, different populations? What has adding a "+" meant in terms of broadening goals, needs and scope? Whose needs are being served by the change? Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what people make of the WP entry title Bathroom bill. Is that a suitable name for a WP article? I've suggested an alternative on the Talk page. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

this interesting little wikipedia page where the homosexual wikipedians discuss what their preferred wording is, ought to be brought to more viral social media attention, i think 71.127.128.21 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

An RFC is underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people.--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies page watchers and supporters are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to join the discussion at MOS/Biographies regarding a proposal to omit the current wording of WP:BIRTHNAME vis-a-vis transgender and non-binary people. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This RFC was already posted here a bit earlier today :-) Funcrunch (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 01:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I Have proposed over on Talk:Gay pride that Gay pride be moved to "LGBT pride". Members of this WikiPoject may want to go there and have their say. --Devin Murphy (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway over moving Causes of transsexualism to Causes of transsexuality. More input requested. Funcrunch (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

There is now a formal move proposal for the page. Funcrunch (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a proposal underway to move Genderqueer to Non-binary gender. Funcrunch (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working on the WikiProject report at The Signpost. Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work for the Signpost? It would be great to have an article about WikiProject LGBT studies and on its works for Pride month. If you're interested, please ping me and/or respond here. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I am currently working on the WMF blog post about the Wiki Loves Pride campaign. It would be really nice if another project member were able to help with the Signpost. Would make a nice companion piece. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Another Believer! Can you point any editors my way? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

More information You are invited... ...

You are invited...
	LGBTQ worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Wiki Loves Pride 2016 16 to 30 June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

Close

--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

This page has been created for anyone who wants to discuss Wikipedia's coverage of the incident, add pictures to the galleries, or leave messages of condolence. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Pulse (nightclub) has been nominated for deletion. If anyone is able to help expand this article (there are a couple helpful URLs posted on the article's talk page), assistance would be much appreciated. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article was kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Heteropatriarchy has been nominated for deletion. Could anyone help to expand the article? DaddyCell (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Homonationalism has been nominated for deletion. Could anyone help to expand the article? DaddyCell (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, re: this edit at Kavita Radheshyam introduces content about some anti-LGBT statements made by the Indian actress. It could use a pass for neutrality and also some consideration as to whether WP:RECENTISM might apply. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the recentism question, but I made a few revisions, corrections, clarifications, and wikifications...and restored one piece of recently-removed information that seemed noteworthy in the context. The sourcing seems adequate and I'm not seeing any glaring neutrality issues, but another pair of eyes or two wouldn't hurt. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There is an archived conversation about this subject. But I need a straightforward standard to refer to. I'm editing the page for Robin Morgan and in her page they refer to Beth Elliott, a trans woman, as a "pre-surgery male to female singer." I believe this to be unnecessary and not in keeping with current practices. "Trans woman" is correct and in line with Elliot's gender. Am I safe in asserting that she should be referred to as a trans woman only? Miffedmess (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Surgical status is irrelevant, and there's no reason to refer to Elliott as anything other than a trans woman. That whole section could use a review for NPOV honestly (adjectives like "trailblazing" and "fiery" make it almost sound like a PR piece for the subject). Funcrunch (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree! but others are not convinced and revert my changes. Where can I direct them to prove legitimacy? Miffedmess (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd point to the BLP policy on privacy. Funcrunch (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• http://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/06/17/wiki-loves-pride/ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In the wake of the Orlando shooting several students and former students have referred me to wikipedia pages on homophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#cite_note-week-62 and latent homosexuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality concerning a supposed link between internalized homophobia and 'latent homosexuality', thus supporting a view that it is repressed gay men who cause anti-gay violence (!!!). These articles have extensive discussions of a few studies based on one psych theory (Freud) and 1) don't report the non-Freudian interpretations of the results (which the sources cited do), and 2) don't mention the non-Freudian responses (I assume because these don't make the popular press, and so there are probably few non-pay-walled links on the web). My concern is that these are being read and reported as though these two results are established facts in the field, when they are nothing of the sort. But they are splashy. One of the articles is locked, and I honestly don't know how to edit the other to clarify what the published articles actually say (I read the primary literature on this.) I am not interested in trashing the articles, just looking to make them clear and less misleading. (I'm a gay prof.) ProfMikeH (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@ProfMikeH: On protected pages you can request edits. See WP:REQUESTEDIT. I'm sure those articles could use some additional material and non-Freudian content. Feel free to message me on my talk page if you need additional help. Wikipedia is a maze of rules and norms that are beyond frustrating to new users, so please try not to get discouraged (it's nearly as bad as having three Reviewer 2's). I'll add those pages to my watchlist and try to help where I can (though I'm about to defend, so the next week or so is not the best time). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment

I would like to add an importance scale.--Lava03 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I really like importance scales and would never get rid of them, but there's not always particularly much point to it. Hmm... I do like the idea of having all our project's "vital articles" of high quality. Not really a strong opinion about it: it may be more work than it's worth, but it may also not be. ~Mable (chat) 19:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute at Michel Foucault over whether the following categories should be applied to the article: Category:Gay writers, Category:LGBT historians, and Category:LGBT writers from France. I invite interested editors to comment whatever their views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

And here is a link to the RfC Talk:Michel_Foucault#RfC:Should_Foucalt_be_tagged_with_LGBT_and_Gay_categories.3F.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

I removed the category "LGBT history in the United Kingdom" from this article because I don't think it's particularly relevant to LGBT history. The founders of this company are gay, but this is incidental and I don't think it should be overemphasized - there is no particular "gay hi fi" market. Jjjjjjdddddd has queried my removal of the category - see the page history and talk page. Comments/opinions are welcome. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the lead mention that the majority of victims were Hispanic, and should the lead mention that Pulse was hosting a Latin night?. - MrX 13:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see User:Wayne Bernath/sandbox, a brand new user has a magazine collection that could probably be of interest to this project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

LGBT editors are at the forefront of bitching about systemic bias and under-representation on WP but when someone posts a note like the above it gets exactly zero response! Does "editor retention" even mean anything to this project? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Found the redirected article for Trantasia, I've added a few sources on the talk page if anyone feels like having a go at restoring and improving the article. PC78 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the possible merger of the LGBT and LGBTQIA user categories. Discussion on the initial creation of the LGBTQIA category is in the archives of this page. Funcrunch (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness, a novel also tagged as being under this project, is at FAC. The review page is here. Additional input would be welcomed. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In view of the inconsistency in regards to how the transgender Wachowskis are credited in film articles I have started a discussion at Talk:The Matrix Reloaded#The Wachowski credit in the lead in attempt to address the problem. Your project has a stated interest in at least one of the articles so please feel free to join the discussion if you would like to have your say or if you can offer a constructive solution to the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Project members are welcome to help expand and improve the Billboard of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see proposal over on Meta for a drive to get more high-quality LGBT+ photos. Funcrunch (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Good news: The grant request for this project has been approved! Funcrunch (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a nomination at DYK which can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Trans Day of Revenge where I am in dispute with the article creator over several issues. I think both the article and hook need a decent copyedit and more sensitive treatment, but do not have the time to devote to it myself. If there is someone on this project with the requisite skills who would like to assist, I would greatly appreciate it. Gatoclass (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Kentucky § Responses to Obergefell v. Hodges needs updating. I've done some today, but the first paragraph of the section is nine months out of date and is obsoleted by the last paragraph.

See Talk: Same-sex marriage in Kentucky § Update needed.

Thnidu (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've set up a new bot report for this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Recognized content. Regards, PC78 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The articles Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why, Gay Marriage (book), Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography, Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life?, Is Homosexuality a Menace?, Lesbian Poetry: An Anthology, Male Homosexuality in Four Societies, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, The David Kopay Story, The Homosexual Matrix, The Mismeasure of Desire, and The Sexual Brain, are within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, but have not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. I request that they be assessed. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronoun usage for Jack Monroe is under discussion. See Talk:Jack Monroe#Pronouns (contd.). Monroe said something along the lines of pronouns not being particularly important to them, so there's not any particular haste, though at the very least the lead section should be changed to reflect recent developments. I'd like to see some more opinions on the topic. ~Mable (chat) 07:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wrote the article a couple of weeks ago. Would love people to contribute! EricthePinko (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I'm looking for editors who might be interested to review some proposed updates for the article of former RIAA head, political consultant and pundit, and LGBT activist Hilary Rosen. Recently, I've begun preparing a new suggested draft to address issues in the current article and expand on information about her life and career. I've also reached out at WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Politics, but would appreciate editors from this wikiproject taking a look too.

As a disclosure: I am working on behalf of Ms. Rosen through her firm SKDKnickerbocker as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Given my COI, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking others' assistance in reviewing my draft and making the suggested changes if they are reasonable. Please see my request here for more information, or to help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, everyone.

Wikimedia Sweden recently finished an image project. The goal has been to produce photos of volunteer models illustrating underwear and human bodies that are not stereotypically while, male, slim, etc. I got the idea for the project after I noticed the almost complete lack of non-sexist imagery of women's bodies at Commons. I was project coordinator during the initial phases and Sara Mörtsell at Wikimedia Sweden has been the project manager. Ina Bäckström handled media coordination in the startup phase and User:Josve05a has assisted with technical know-how on Commons. The project was funded as part of a grant from the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society. We hired Tomas Gunnarsson, a well known feminist and gender rights activist in Sweden, as our photographer. Everyone of us participated with input and in the final selection of models.

The images that have come out of the project can be found in the Commons category Category:Uploaded via Campaign:Normprojekt. We tried our best to find as varied models as possible in terms of gender identity, race, age and body type. In the linked category there are 125 photos of six models of various colors, ages and shapes. All of them are volunteers that have agreed to the terms and conditions involved in having photos of themselves published under a free license.

Everyone who's been active in the project is hoping these images will be used to diversify our illustration of people on Wikipedia. I've already included a few of the images in articles like foot, the finger and sports bra. Please feel free to spread them wherever you feel they are relevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to these images. I've already found a place to use one. Funcrunch (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's great. In a similar vein: I do remember noticing last year that the articles on sex acts (while I certainly appreciate the cartoonish illustrations in lieu of borderline pornographic material) that basically all of the illustrations were of white people. May be something to keep in mind if anyone around here knows an editor who's a gifted illustrator. TimothyJosephWood 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I invite you all to discuss the issue that I raised there. --George Ho (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems like at some point in the past, a number of articles on women who cross-dressed to eg. join the army or become a doctor have been improperly moved or categorized to portray them as trans men. This is in violation of Wikipedia's policies/guidelines to rely on identification and on reliable sourcing, since there seems to be no indication that these people identified as men (and indeed, in at least one article I've found, sources explicitly state that she cross-dressed for the social and economic freedom) and sources refer to them as women with female pronouns. I've already fixed Barbara Adriaens and Enriqueta Favez, and it looks like there are more in Category:Transgender and transsexual military personnel that are also inappropriately categorized/written. Maybe members of this project are aware of more in other categories? It's not difficult as such, but I'd appreciate the help chipping away at it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to look into this. Ping me on Monday to remind if I haven't. Editing on the weekends is sporadic because family. TimothyJosephWood 00:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: the promised ping –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Roscelese, I have gone through the military category and removed the ones that obviously did not belong. Most of these were anachronistic. Simply put, blurring gender mores of a few hundred years ago doesn't make you transgender; self-identifying as transgender makes you transgender. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I think there's also pronoun-editing and unverified statements to remove (eg. in Sarah Rosetta Wakeman). For the ones I did, Barbara Adriaens and Enriqueta Favez, I double-checked how sources typically referred to them (name and pronouns) and revised content where necessary as well as categories (removing trans category, making sure Category:Female wartime cross-dressers was applied). (Of the ones still remaining in the category, Albert Cashier, for example, is pretty consistently referred to as Jennie Hodgers/woman soldier/she in most sources, although in this case unlike others, there are actually a few quality sources describing her as a trans man, such that it might be worth mentioning in the article and retaining the category, even if the main text is written with female pronouns.) Do you think you could help out with this as well, or should I come back to it at a less busy time? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking out of ignorance: is there an MoS for this? Do pronouns differ pre/post-out or...what? TimothyJosephWood 22:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's under MOS:GENDERID - we describe them throughout their lives using their currently identified gender except where they have indicated that it would be appropriate to do otherwise. I don't think that applies in the cases I'm talking about, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis have made some of their research titles on LGBTQ free to access for the whole of August: http://explore.tandfonline.com/page/ah/global-approach-to/global-approach-to...lgbtq Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There's an RfC happening here on Talk:Gary_Cooper#Anderson_Lawler whether to include mention of the very gay Anderson Lawler -- Gary Cooper's best friend in his article.Engleham (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've listed Chad Harris-Crane for peer review. The character is one of the first examples of LGBT people of color and made daytime television and soap opera history as a participant in a scene of two men simulating sex. Comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing RfC on Talk:Same-sex marriage that may be of interest to this project. Thanks. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I am inviting participants in WikiProject LGBT Studies to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

• The conference includes a track called "community", and I anticipate that topics in LGBT studies will be raised in those presentations
• We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
• We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
• More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact Flonight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
• Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
• This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here at this WikiProject also. I am a participant in this WikiProject, and I want the interests of this WikiProject represented at all wiki events everywhere in the world. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a trans-related submission this week... Funcrunch (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've posted my submission: A presentation on the Transgender Gap. Funcrunch (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Funcrunch, would it be possible to use userbox usage to get some kind of stats on this? TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean... Funcrunch (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts were something along the lines of: taking account of how many users display userboxes for trans, gqueer, nonbinary, etc...could someone get a rough underestimate of demographics? Of course this is with the understanding that not all people who identify as such are going to display the userboxes. TimothyJosephWood 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. Well the "transgender gap" I'm addressing is more about a knowledge gap than about the gap between the number of trans and cis editors, which I'm assuming is larger by many orders of magnitude than the gap between female and male editors, and likely always will be. But I will also talk in my presentation (if it is accepted) about ways we might more accurately measure trans participation. Funcrunch (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

General question: Are these going to be uploaded on the Foundation YouTube? TimothyJosephWood 03:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood I regret not. Conference organizers have not prioritized video capture and the WMF has never encouraged video capture for any conference. As a conference organizer, I feel that the budget is already tight although if there were an addition 1-3k available I would recommend hiring videographers in preference to anything else. The discussion is ongoing but regardless, any video captured at this conference will be either be unplanned and spontaneous or by some amateur efforts. Such as things are, I am helping to do some video recording, but there will be 4 conference tracks and only 2 cameras. I have no experiencing filming but I will give this a good try. Videos will be posted on YouTube and Commons but not in the WMF YouTube channel. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if a presentation like that of Funcrunch were taped by someone's phone; I'd just love to be able to see it. Be sure to let us know where we may be able to find any video material of the event, Blue Rasberry :) ~Mable (chat) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I too am hoping for video. If I'm approved to present, I'm planning to bring my spouse with me, and he is a professional audio engineer; I could put him in touch with Bluerasberry or any other volunteer who is willing to shoot video. My camera has a video mode, but I was only planning to use it to shoot stills. Funcrunch (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Much confusion about "electro shock therapy" --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 22:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought. Is it possible to create a referenced list of all the colleges and universities where this happened? I know BYU did it, but many more must have. Has this been researched?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Homerjunior (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)An additional item for this article might be the paintings in the Tomb of the Infernal Chariot in the Etruscan necropolis of Pianacce. The wall paintings are analyzed at <http://www.museosarteano.it/pagina4.php?linguanumero=2> It is common in Etruscan tombs for banquets to be depicted. In this case the banquet seems to be for the deceased in the tomb. Normally in Etruscan banquet paintings a husband and wife are seen together on a couch, eating and talking. Here there are two men together on a couch, looking at each other and touching each other as lovers. Normally in Etruscan art the men are painted red, indicating the suntan (or sunburn) they get performing their male gender role in outdoor activities. The women are painted white, indicating their pale color resulting from performing their gender role in the home. Of the two men on the couch, one is painted red and the other is painted white. But the latter is shown with the stubble of a recently shaved beard, so that there will be no doubt about his sex. I can only see this scene as portraying a homosexually married couple, in which one takes the female gender role in the home. It is clear to me that he/she is transgender.Homerjunior (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Klinefelter XXY (2nd nomination). This issue is a bit technical and I cannot follow the sources. Because this deletion discussion relates to a minority gender issue I thought I would alert this board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lesbian novels has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Category:Transgender and transsexual novels has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:LGBT sportspeople at the 2016 Summer Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Funcrunch (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Supreme Court just overturned Belize's sodomy law, 10 minutes ago. I have added the reference to the article, but am unsure how to mark the article as an active situation as we do not know what the next steps are yet. I also don't know how to change all of the articles this effects. Can you help or tell me who can? SusunW (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks to be in decent shape at this point, at least as far as the court ruling goes. If you have any specific concerns, it may be best to open a discussion on the article's talk page. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey SusunW. FYI, I believe the template you were looking for was Template:Current. Five days later it's almost certainly too late to use on this article in particular, but it could be something to keep in mind if it comes up again. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Timothyjosephwood: exactly what I wanted. I'll save that template in my tools. No doubt it will be useful again. SusunW (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should create Belizean Council of Churches to figure out who these people are... Is it a Scott Lively kind of affair?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the external links list this. It should be used as an in-line reference instead. But is the SPLC a reliable source, or would we need to find other sources based on clues taken from their report?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The issues are complex. There was outside involvement/funding, but not with the Belize Council of Churches or with the Belize Association of Evangelical Churches, as organizations per se. Those are organizations which have existed since the 1970s and appoint a Senator to represent the church positions in Belize. While they opposed changing the law (legalizing sodomy), the mainstream churches did not hold marches, hang effigies, nor advocate violence. The opposition supported by external sources are individuals not part of the mainstream churches. Their names are well known, but BLP questions in my mind keep me from naming them. A far better article, IMO would be one on Caleb Orozco, which I will not write due to COI. I can supply materials. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s sorry forgot to tag you in above. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it make sense to create United Belize Advocacy Movement, with a redirect for the founder? I've started reading the report but I must take notes as there is too much for passive reading.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s Yes that makes sense because most of the information that is available on UNIBAM was created by the organization, i.e. not indpendent. In the public's mind Unibam is Caleb though he isn't currently the president and the organization has a diverse membership. The NY Times piece on Caleb from last year gives a lot of info on him. SusunW (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:SusunW: Is Patricia King (evangelist) based in the US or Canada? See p. 8.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I just saw "CSA was founded in Canada in 1973 and in the USA in 1994. The head office is based in Maricopa, Arizona". Is she a US citizen?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s She has ties to both but I think is American Patricia King's real name is Patricia Coking she is listed the secretary of Christian Services Association, which has its official address in Mission, BC, Canada, though also gives an AZ address A lot of the websites that used to link to her were shut down after the SPLC report came out, but I believe you can track donations CSA made in Canada to Stirm. SusunW (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. Can you please double-check that I've cited the SPLC PDF accordingly? I used the News citing template, I wasn't sure which one to use. It's not a newspaper article, not a journal, not a website... But I'm also wondering if her article should get deleted. I don't think it would pass an AFD, would it? Finally, I don't intend to do original research, just relay whatever's in the public domain. I feel like Belize Action should probably have an article, which would include King's support, but she shouldn't have one. What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s I would call it a report instead of a news item. And, I didn't realize that there was an actual article on her. I thought you were just asking for your own information and background to the situation in Belize. If the article can't be sourced, it should be deleted. I would have the same reservations about Belize Action, hard to source, hard to know for sure who the parties are, though the spokespeople are known. There is lots of press about them, but the question would be are they notable for one event and I think the answer to that is yes. No lasting notability, unless of course there is an appeal. SusunW (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Should there be a paragraph about them at LGBT rights in Belize? I agree that an AFD is in order.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely think that they should be listed there (in the main article) as were the main agitators of opposition to the case, but I have asked myself if they would be notable without the case and cannot see that they would be. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not that simple, as we have articles about specific events. It mostly depends on the amount of reliable third-party sources. But a lengthy article about the topic is preferable to lots of stubs in my opinion. Also, were Belizean politicians or businessmen involved?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Shoman who at the time was a Senator and one of Caleb's attorneys on the case, was an advocate. Most politicians preferred to let the courts work it out. Only business person who spoke out repeatedly was Louis Wade, who owns/runs Plus TV and was part of Belize Action. SusunW (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is Louis Wade? What about American businesspeople who backed the American Christian Right? I think those churches are just a smokescreen for business interests. (For example, are there private prisons in Belize?) Is there research about this in the public domain?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Plus is a Christian network, run by Wade. , , , To my knowledge Hattieville is the only prison and it's government run. SusunW (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've read the report. I don't think it is citable, it is too vague. There is more to Belize than this, but the research has either not been done or not published or I haven't found it. Sorry, I don't think I can be much help after all.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I've said from the get-go, Caleb was the only one with sufficient independent RS for an article. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think United Belize Advocacy Movement should have an article. Why don't you create it?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Discussion relisted for additional comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Corday. Montanabw^(talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here interested in adding more referenced info about Susan Lynn's anti-transgender bill? I cited an article from The Tennessean, but there must be more to it. The situation of the high school student in Hendersonville, Tennessee, who is forced to use the teachers' bathroom (closed half the time) sounds like a human rights violation by the way.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the high school: Beech Senior High School.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit more on it at the bathroom bill page... Funcrunch (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really not enough.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I've tried to improve Richard A. Heyman. Is anyone able to find a copyright-free picture we could use please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion happening at Talk:Domestic violence regarding whether it is appropriate to include victim hotlines in external links. Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)