Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

looking for userbox

is there a userbox for those of us who like to genderfuck? Danscobanditcommander 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Try:
Or in fact any of dozens on User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality and User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw those and they're nice. Unfortunately, none really apply to me. :( Thanks anyway, though. know this isn't the right place to ask for that. Danscobanditcommander 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this one any good for you?
{{User:Crimsone/template/User_transcends_gender}} (just looking to be inclusive! :) Crimsone 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fabulous! Thanx! Danscobanditcommander 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT category structure

I started trying to match the category list in the portal to the category structure within Category:LGBT and gave up very quickly!

The structure of the LGBT categories really need sorting and rearranging. I believe that some renames are in order, and some rationalisation of what categories some of the categories are in would be a start. Right now, I just don't have the time and patience to sort this, but it really needs doing! --AliceJMarkham 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally with you on this one. Do you want to try and sort it out on the Category:LGBT talk page? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it's a mess. -- Samuel Wantman 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality-based stereotypes

I'm worried about the direction this article is going in. One of the biggest problems with the state of it prior to AfD was that it was totally unsupported by reliable references. Although the additions to it seems all right, we risk building up this page into a list of things that have been associated with various sexual orientations as they occur to individual editors. Any thoughts as to how no made this article more (how can I put it...) academically valid? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Further thoughts re: rename

I've also made some comments on the talk page re: the rename (article was previously Gay stereotyping). The scope now seems very wide- it must surely cover stereotypes of heterosexuals and probably also all other sexualities under the sun: paedophilia, zoophilia etc. Might I suggest Stereotypes of LGBT people as a narrower and more manageable scope? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal talk:LGBT

I've added a update rota to Portal talk:LGBT in order to get some co-ordination going. Please add your name if you think you can change an article, a picture, or a biography once a week, add some news occasionally etc.

We only need to demonstrate consistent updating for a month in order to achieve Featured Portal status (and obviously, consistent updating as long as it is FP). Let's make that our goal.

Also, any ideas for new things to add to the Portal would be good. Portal:London has buckets of unique stuff, it would be cool if we did too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, SatyrTN has signed up for biography, can other people sign up for the rest? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Jumpaclass and other musings

The infrastructure for a successful WikiProject has now been largely built. Now we've all got to start using it! I've listed a fair number of articles at translation that need doing, and Jumpaclass is languishing unloved and unwanted, so sign up there if you're interested. On the bright side, Gay stereotyping is improving immensely since its listing as COTM, so well done there. And the assessments have been going a month and our log has over 1300 articles, so that's excellent. Do keep on tagging as you come across LGBT articles.

However, MILHIST's ratio of stubs to FAs is currently 1%. Ours is 0.001%, and largely because I went through the FA list and tagged LGBT people. We can improve this, either by writing more FAs (a skill which takes time to acquire), or by improving more stubs (a skill which doesn't). You may have realised this paragraph is a overt attempt to promote Jumpaclass - so sign up! Tidy up our stubs, and lets become the first WikiProject with more starts than stubs! Yay! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Kushner

If anyone wants an easy Jump-A-Class article to work with, Tony Kushner is currently rated a Stub - it only has five paragraphs of text, though it has a list of works, etc, that counts close to 100 entries. Kushner should be easy for someone to jump to B level. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Information collating?

Ok, my idea for a meta project went down like a house on TNT, but the idea of cross-collaboration lives on. One of our aims is to collate information suitable for transwikiing - so does anyone have any ideas for useful textbooks to do with LGBT that we could consider? Doesn't matter how dumb you think your ideas are, we can discuss it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New how to.

I'm working on a series of how tos on how to write articles, which you can see here. Your feedback would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Homosexuality

Hey folks, just by chance I've stumbled across something very interesting: the entire Encyclopedia of Homosexuality is now online, or should I say, on-wiki. I hadn't heard of it before, but should be a good resource for us. Check it out (and read the article at the top of the start page, "Why the encyclopedia went out of print"): [[1]].

Also, check out the too-funny autobiography of William A. Percy, who seems to have his own web page over there (now how do you get to do that on Wikipedia??): [[2]] --Textorus 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Should anyone care to comment

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic spanking

Nina Odell 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why we have the Notice board. --Samuel Wantman 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much! Nina Odell 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ARCAID

I recently added a note to WP:FA asking for FA writers interested in LGBT issues to join the project, and was told that homosexuality really needs cleaning. Would it therefore be a good idea to nominate it at ARCAID? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, that might get some more editors interested in joining the project. But on the other, even though it was CotM, it was only sorta. And it feels like giving up :) But that's just my $US0.02... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone besides myself doesn't know the acronym, it is Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Aleta 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

GLBT related page move for gay porn stars

See Talk:List of gay porn stars. Please add your thoughts. Whatever they maybe. 205.157.110.11 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I didn't see a specific place for listing articles in Peer Review -- sorry if I missed it -- but I wanted to point out the PR for The Well of Loneliness, which I'm hoping to raise to FA.

Also, I noticed a bot tagging Natalie Clifford Barney for the project. It was promoted on October 23 -- does that really make it the first LGBT-related FA? Still a pioneer more than a century after she came out! —Celithemis 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Celithemis! I don't think we have a Peer Review system set up yet - this project is still a bit of a fledgling one :) And that was my Bot, but we sorta decided that if the project didn't have a hand in making an article FA, then we shouldn't take credit. But Congrats - to you and all the contributing editors! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Category and assessment point.

Ok, I just finished cataloguing every article we have in the LGBT cats using AWB. Looks like we have our work cut out, guys, cos I just found over 6711 articles tucked away in there (and I didn't count BDSM stuff).

More importantly, I think mass deletion is the only way to go for the categories. Most have only 4 or 5 entries, and while I see the wisdom of waiting for cats like "LGBT people from Poland" to fill up, "Bisexual Canadian actors" is gonna be a long time coming. I'm gonna start noting down cats for deleting and make mass noms at CfD. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Please let us know when you do, and what cats. Thanks!!! Oh, and there was a little bit of discussion about part of that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, one point - Category:LGBT-related television programs is full of programs that had one gay character in them, and has thus been lebelled LGBT related. Someone might want to take programs like Buffy and South Park out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(post has been changed twice) Samuel has now explained the difference to me between merge and delete for articles and categories, I've rewritten the post:

And for outright deletion:

This better? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I thought we might need to discuss some of them before I started listing at CfD. Anyone want to remove/add anything to the list? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging is one thing, deleting is another. I assuming (and hoping) that for most of this you are suggesting they be merged into their parents. Please be clearer. Off-hand there seems to be just a very few deletes. -- Samuel Wantman 09:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The category itself should be deleted, but in most cases, yes, the articles would just be upmerged. Is that not right? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I split the list for ones that should be upmerged. The bisexual actor categories would need renaming to "bisexual actors from..." so they may as well be deleted outright. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I recommend they all be upmerged - Bisexual Venezuelan actors, for instance, to Bisexual actors. I'm against just deleting them, since that leaves the articles out in the cold and not necessarily part of WP:LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was kinda assuming that articles that found themselves in deleted categories would simply be appropriately categorised under categories we DO have. Upmerging would be to leave a redirect behind, and why do that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Merging and leaving a redirect is a rare event, and would not normally happen if the category is merged into a parent. So can we start with two lists:
  • Categories that should not exist, and should not be merged.
  • Categories that should be merged with their parent categories.
-- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the modified list of categories, I think most of our categories need reorganizating. This can just be undertaken by anyone who wants to help. There are some big questions to be discussed: Do we want categorys about "LGBT culture in foo" or "LGBT in foo". I think it should be "LGBT culture in foo". LGBT culture should be subcategorized by country, but most other categories should not. Some need subcategories for L,G,B and T. I also think that many of the LGBT profession categories should be converted to lists. Especially the Actors. A list can annotate and explain things that a category cannot. -- Samuel Wantman 09:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists have to be kept up to date, though. That would be difficult with the bigger ones like actors. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll reserve judgment on actors, then. But for other categories I think the lists would be useful, and would avoid constant CFD discussions that say "irrelevant intersection". Lists would also help solve the problem, w/r/t a lot of the academic and literary cats, of whether they are LGBT people who are those occupations, or whether they are straight people involved in LGBT/queer studies. --lquilter 16:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Writers categories

Just a note, there is a disucssion on LGBT writers categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

YAY US!

Congratulations, we've just broken 50 members! Yay us! Now if only some of you would sign up for Jumpaclass... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay rights or homosexuality?

Scotteaux has just randomly moved Gay rights in France to Homosexuality in France with apparently no consensus whatsoever. Did anyone agree on this anywhere or is he just breaking general guidelines and needs to be reverted? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see them as two completely different articles. Gay rights would be about homosexuality and the law while Homosexuality in France (perhaps renamed LGBT life in France or something along those lines) would address the overall view of LGBT people in that country. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I'd better go move it back then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Support moving it back :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. Anyone want to comment on the category proposal above? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello all - I'm really sorry for not having followed protocol -- now that I made a mistake I will try to learn more before making changes. I'm new here and didn't mean any harm and really appreciate your patience.Scotteaux 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

GA!!!

As of today, Same-sex marriage in Spain is a Great Article!!! :D Wanted to share the news, please bear with me hehe! Next stop, FAC! Raystorm 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done Raystorm! Good luck with FAC! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Raystorm 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am very happy for you, Raystorm! I know how much work it takes to get an article so far. Best of luck with bringing it to FA, and if you need any help, feel free to call on me. Jeffpw 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
*Grin* Thanks, I will! I'm gonna rest a bit for now (you know, recharge my batteries after obsessing for a month with trying to get the article to GA status!), and afterwards I'll proceed with the peer review and see what needs to be done to get it to FA. Cheers Raystorm 12:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Lady Records

Can someone revisit the assessment on this article? I've spent a while on it to get it up to scratch so it doesn't get deleted (yet it's still rated as stub class, grr). Proto::► 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Bloody well done. I need to nominate more stubs for deletion... :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, shiny...

Hey, I just found this on the Commons:

I'm guessing from the information given it's used on the French Wikipedia. Reckon we ought to add it to our arsenal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dev, it was uploaded by an Italian user. According to CheckUsage, it has been used on one talk page on Italian Wikipedia and on a talk page on French Wikipedia. So only 5 times in total including here and on Commons. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the medal is? I note that the original version oft his file (before rainbows were added) was used as a Wikiaward for people who contributed to ecclesiastical topics on Dutch wikipedia (see Image:Wiklesia.jpg). I'm slightly concerned that if the medal has religious symbolism it may cause unnecessary controversy to use it with regards to LGBT topics... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears to be a papal medal. If you look at the high res version, the W in the middle is covering a papal coat of arms. The writing on the edge says Ecclesiastica. When I saw it on the Commons, its description was in French, so I assumed a French user uploaded it. My bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Actually, it's a Latin inscription "pro ecclesia et pontifixx" (I can't make out these letters), which means "for the church and the Pope/papacy (depending on those two letters)". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've tracked it down. It's the "Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice" medal, instituted by Leo XIII in 1888 in memory of his golden jubilee. It is the highest honour a non-priest can recieve. I'm surprised it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article.
The award shown above, however, is the obverse side (the back) and it appears the medal has undergone numerous redesigns from a cursory inspection of Google images. We probably could use it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it prob does deserve an article. But I disagree as to use. Given the nature of the original medal I feel it inappropriate for us to use it. Given the Vatican's present stance on homosexuality, it can only serve to potentially anger Catholic editors. As we are not here to crusade for gay rights but promote in depth coverage of GLBT topics in a neutral manner, I think we should stick to the present LGBT barnstar. Otherwise we risk opening a can of worm. Shame though, it looks rather good. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a clearer version. Shame, it's very pretty. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty. I really like the ribbon. We could loose the controversial medal bit. What if I edit it to keep the ribbon and replace the medal with a barnstar? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We already have a barnstar. Let me see if I can find a pretty medal that doesn't have religious homosexual-hating overtones. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fashion parade:
  • Image:Goudenkruis vierdaagse14.jpg - Nijmegan medal, utterly beautiful, and given out to those who complete a gruelling 4 day 150km trek with full pack - when I was an Air Cadet, people who completed Nijmegan were as gods.
  • Image:Germanorder.jpeg - This is lovely, as long as we um, get rid of that, um, Swastika in the middle it'll be fine.

Personally, I like the Nijmegan one. Might need a bit more customising, but you have to admit, it is fabulous, isn't it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I love the second one- great irony. Might Jewish contributors mind? What does the gold medal from the Gay Games look like? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried to find a good image of a Papal tiara that we could use, to no avail. That would be my first choice :) Other than that, I like the Nijmegan, but I wonder if we couldn't find a 6 rayed star for the rainbow colors? Or, perhaps, go with the Nazi one (minus the swastika) and with the eight colors? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I object in the strongest possible terms to the use of the nazi medal. Even with the removal of swastika it still contains the iron cross, another symbol of german military oppression. Where some see "irony" in the use of this medal for our purposes here on Wikipedia, I see only insensitivity and supreme bad taste. Jeffpw 10:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with military symbols: however, on looking closer at the nazi medal, there are six eagles and another swastika (near the top) on it. If we removed all of them, we wouldn't be left with a lot. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
True, it isn't an appropriate symbol and I don't think any of us really thought it should be used. Much as I enjoy the idea of using words/symbols formerly used for oppression for purposes contrary to that oppression, Jeff's comment is a valid reminder of the feelings still engendered by those symbols after their corruption by that awful regime. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an open tasks template?

See an example on my talk page of the template used by the 'countering systemic bias' wikiproject...is there one of these for LGBT studies? Or is there someone here that knows how to create one? Thanks, bcatt 22:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's at the top of this page. I was thinking we need to do something with it though, because no-one is using it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I put that one on my talk page and it will update when the main one is updated? Thanks... bcatt 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Just add the code:
{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/to do}}
and that should do it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

gay icon targetted

I see that gay icon is already on the to-do list, and I've just added it to the noticeboard, but that section of the noticeboard doesn't seem to have a very high turnover rate (some listings approaching a year old). So I'm letting everyone know here... the gay icon article was recently targetted for speedy deletion (unexplained, tag removed by admin) and will probably come up for AFD soon. Heads up. — coelacan talk — 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is a mess. I slapped a {{world}} tag on it, since it seems overly biased towards American examples, with a few obvious British ones thrown in. It also seems fairly listy. Another criticism I have is that it doesn't spend much time developing the definition of Gay Icon, and tracing its roots/history. All in all, quite a problematic article. I don't think it should be speedied, but it does need a major face-lift. I will try to work on it today. Jeffpw 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have spent hours improving this article (though I don't know why, since it is such a silly article). I had to render the criticism section invisible, as it was added by an anon IP and I can't find a single ref to support it. The rest is basically ref'd now, and I added some more info and images. Jeffpw 14:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW...what an improvement! Great work Jeff. Agne 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

GRRRRRRRRRRRR. It is now up for Afd, with no reason given. Please check out my improvements to it, and weigh in on the AFD discussion. Regards, Jeffpw 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's ridiculous. That is a well-written article, and Jeff has done a marvellous job on it. I've voted keep. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been speedy closed. Koweja 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It all happened so fast, I slept through it. Now the article looks great too! Fantastic work, Jeff. — coelacan talk — 20:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Guys this article was always going to be kept. There was no need for a lot of people from the project to jump into the AfD. There has been a view developing that posting that AfDs are occuring to Wikiprojects is an example of trying to vote-stack and disrupts the deletion process because projects are inherently likely to wish to expand their coverage at the expense of policy. At the moment the relevant guideline is the shiny new WP:CANVAS. It seems to me a bad idea to create examples of occasions where a project has rallied its members to oppose an AfD (especially as in this case I don't think it was needed). Just wanted to advise caution in future- much stricter canvassing rules may be round the corner... WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, WJBscribe. The article wasn't always going to be kept, which is why I mentioned here that it needed help, but after Jeffpw got through with it, yeah, there was no chance of deletion. — coelacan talk — 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I agree with the idea against vote stacking but I don't think eliminating Project noticeboards are a good idea. A dreadful flaw of AfD is that is not really a microcosm of the Wikipedia community but rather a clique of regular who (like any group) are limited in their own perspective and their own systematic bias. Without the inclusion of diverse views, many good articles have been deleted simply because of the limited scope they were evaluated in. There needs to be a middle ground where Projects are actively invited to participate in these types of discussions but without the appearance of vote stacking. Agne 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate page?

While I am obviously absolutely delighted we now have over 60 members, our membership list is now somewhat unwieldy. Shall we split it off to a separate page? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What about having a table of users on the main page split into columns (names only) and then a list on a subpage where users can write a more detailed description of their interests/involvements? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I expect you'd be likely to get plenty of people only signing one or the other. — coelacan talk — 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but we can easily transcribe across. The main list (names only) would be the main one. Anyone on that page gets listed on the subpage and its up to them if they give details of interests there? Would that work? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, can we have a boring normal list as well, please? I don't want to scare people off because the joining instructions are too complicated, and also I can't pull up a membership list using AWB with the list as it is. I think the WJBscribe list is great, particularly if we possibly changed it to a sort of questionnaire (How did you find out about the project? What do you do on Wikipedia? etc.), but we need a conventional list as well for convenience. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the list now on the main page (the table) OK. Or do we need another one? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've set up the pages as I proposed so people can have a look and see how it works. Satyr set up an alternative whereby the list is moved to a sub page and the last 10 people to join are reproduced on the main page. We can easily revert to that if it is prefered. What do people think? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it... I mean, it's not ridiculously long and I think that having all the members in one spots promotes people working together. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm. See, the thing is, if the table is one place to sign up, and the separate page is another, we now have three spots potential new users might sign up (including the notice_board, which might go away). While I don't like the coding on the separate members page, it still works okay and doesn't overcrowd the main page. While the new table is smaller and better, won't it still (hopefully) get longer and eventually be too big? Just my thoughts, but very interested in what others think... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In the cold light of day, I still want a normal list. I think many newbies would be bewildered by the current list we have, and I want to start an Inactive members section when I send out next month's newsletter. However, if everyone else wants it as it stands, I'm happy to maintain a list in my userspace. Should we have a vote? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well some newbies were having problem with the simple list. I noticed when sorting it that User:Forsakendaemon signed the list as User:ForsakenDAemon. Satyr therefore welcomed a non-existent user by following the talkpage link (I've now welcomed the right user). Realistically any system we come up with needs us to keep an eye on it and make sure we sort out attempts to sign up that don't quite work. Satyr: where's the third place to sign up? I like having the table as I'd like to have the full list on the main page for as long as possible but don't have a strong view on the setup of the subpage (though I like the idea of it being a space for more infortmation to be given). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
On the notice board. We don't view that as a membership list, but I bet a newbie wouldn't know there was a distinction. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought the point of that list was for people who wanted to express an interest in the subject area but didn't want to actually join the project. Though I see some project members are also on that list. Mmm- I see the difficulty. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems this has just happened, with two people adding themselves to the quilt and another to the main list. I don't think this is going to work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I still think its worth keeping the table so everyone's on the main project page as long as possible. Its just a question of keeping a little watch on the table and the list and copying any that only sign in one place. But obviously if I'm in a minority here we can easily lose the table and either just have the main list and have the last 10 people to join appear automatically on the mainpage as Satyr previously set it up... WJBscribe -WJB talk- 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's only been two days. I think it's fair to give it a little while longer before just dumping it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the members list again:I copied another WikiProject's idea and added my own variation - now we can see all the active members, and the main membership list can be used for perusal, AWB, and an inactive member section. We then don't need to worry about this again until we have about 120 members. How does that sound?
I also had this idea of adapting WJBScribe's table idea and turning it into a "quilt", in the manner of Radiant's userpage. Every active member gets a patch in which to put whatever they want - it might be a helpful community-building exercise. Thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Present form of list works fine for me. Should we do the same for the People interested in LGBT issues list on the noticeboard which is also getting a bit long? The quilt idea seems like a good one too. Bit of harmless fun... WJBscribe -WJB talk- 08:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out what WikiProject Mythology has done.

If we're going to have a list on the main page, could we perhaps move it to the bottom? The way it is now, it is very unwieldy, and requires one to do much scrolling to see the rest of the page content. Another idea which might make navigation of this, the notice-board, etc. easier is to use a model like what WikiProject Mythology have with the tabs. It is very easy to use and makes things neater, IMO. I actually would like this better than having the members list right on the front page at all. Aleta 08:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Homovestism

Hello Wikipedians, I've been editing the orphaned article Homovestism. I'd like to add some wikilinks to the article, but would prefer that the spelling of the title be changed first. Specifically, I want to move the article to Homeovestism, the spelling used in the bulk of the professional literature on the subject. A Google search for "homovestism" brings up only 183 hits [3] while an extra "e" yields 798. Because I've only just registered my account, I can't move the page. Could someone please help me with this? Abendrot 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done-FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Abendrot 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cats

Can we please continue the discussion on categories? This becoming an issue of some importance as I want to get on with making Portal:LGBT a Featured Portal, but one of the requirements is a list of categories, and I can't create a list if half of it will be deleted! This is an issue we just need to push on and resolve and once we've cleaned out the cobwebs it'll be so much easier to use. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest we have a centralized area for categorization? WikiProject Arts has a section that is part of the portal where the subject has been discussed. See Portal:Arts/Categories. This section is also linked from the Portal. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a link to the page from the portal. Perhaps now we can redirect our discussion of cats to the talk page there? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation Template

Do we have an invitation template to invite prospective members to our project? Several other projects have it, and it might be useful if we created one, too. Just a thought. Jeffpw 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN has one, I'm sure he'll link to it. Personally, I prefer leaving notes on talkpages. It has a more friendly feel, I reckon. Even when I'm mass inviting with AWB I try to use a form message rather than a template. It seems to work, at least 14 users have joined the WikiProject at my direct invitation. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what I did, actually. Left a nice note one a potential new member's talk page. We'll see if it has any effect....Jeffpw 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
And if you or anyone wants it, the invite (which could be, I suppose, intimidating) is at User:SatyrTN/Template/LGBT Studies Invite. You can transclude it using {{User:SatyrTN/Template/LGBT Studies Invite}} and it will figure out their username, etc, so it's at least a little personalized. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Satyr. And intimidating? What could be intimidating about a bright cheerful Rainbow flag popping up on your talk page????? Jeffpw 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It is pleasingly colourful :). If this template is going to be used might it need updating a little? It lists the activities of the project as categorising and indentifying topics/problems, it doesn't say anything about actually improving the quality of articles relevant to the LGBT community. And should it (if Satyr doesn't mind) be moved from his userspace to projectspace here? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree! I created it to spur activity in the WikiProject - to great success, I might add :) - but it was really created on-the-moment, so it definitely needs updating. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Two new(ish) ideas.

It seems to me that we now have at least ten active members, so it might be worthwhile revisiting the idea of a peer review. Would anyone be interested in peer reviewing LGBT articles? I ask because I don't want us to set it up and then people be disappointed with no reviews like they are on the main peer review.

Additionally, somewhere up above I suggested an article watchlist. I was looking through the List of controversial issues yesterday and noticed there were a lot of LGBT articles on it. Might it be worth setting one of these up? Members can then add heavily vandalised articles or articles with edit wars. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the second idea would be to keep an eye specifically on articles that are frequently vandalised, and to have a list of these so that we all can know what those are? I'd help with that, certainly. As for the peer review, I'd do some, but how much would honestly probably vary with how much I felt like doing it at any time. I think it would be good to do; I'm just being honest about my probable commitment to such an endeavor. Aleta 09:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am willing to commit to Peer reviewing any and all articles submitted to this project for review. I think that's an essential part of any WikiProject. I do it to some degree at WikiProject Biography, but would prefer to focus more of my time and efforts here, since Biography already has so many active members. Jeffpw 09:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to build the peer review, but I'm slightly concerned that only three people have expressed an interest in reviewing articles - is anyone else interested? I just don't want to disappoint anyone if they sign up with our PR. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to help out with both the Peer Review and the Article Watchlist.Parammon 05:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd also help out. I spent some time over at the GA Review till I got burnt with some of the wiki-drama. I think my time would be more valuable over here. Agne 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll get on with constructing both of those then. It also occurred to me that we should peer review our COTM a day before before it gets put up, it would probably help give people ideas of what to do with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stupid question of the day

When tagging articles as related to this project, do we need to manually ad them to the list on the project page? I haven't been doing that. I thought a bot did that for us Jeffpw 09:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we need to do it.  :) As it is, the protocol is a list of ten articles, with your removing one from the top for each one you add at the bottom. Since articles can sometimes be added in such large numbers, I've wondered if ten is a long enough list to keep things from being deleted right away. Aleta 09:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Aleta. I will start being more conscientious about that protocol, and will look for the articles I tagged. Jeffpw 09:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If the list is being updated so much, maybe editors adding to it should limit it to one or two article that they really like and would appreciate it being given some TLC. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I also thought a bot did this for us! Thanks for asking that not-at-all stupid question Jeffpw! :) Raystorm 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion

Discussion of LGBT categories has begun on Portal talk:LGBT/Categories. Please join in the discussion. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Ok, I created the watchlist here and filled it with a few articles I found at the list of controversial issues and the relevant category - anyone who wants to add/remove articles is welcome. What occurred to me is with the shift from th enoticeboard to an open tasks template on the horizon, it might be more helpful to people who want to list article disputes to add them to the watchlist with a brief note about the nature of the dispute. That way everyone can keep an eye on it. Does this sound OK?

Also, I want to create a userbox similar to the PAW one, but with a few changes. So, can anyone create an image using Image:Closeup of an blue-green human eye.jpeg to have the rainbow colours on it somehow (maybe washed over the top, or colouring the iris, I don't know)? I would be grateful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay, Dev! I'll make sure to put any I'm not already watching on my list. Aleta 22:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I have created all the peer review stuff, and the main page is here. If anyone was planning a peer review, it would be good if we could road test this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • What do you think about adding a section listing active Peer Reviewers? That way, nominators could message reviewers directly. Just a thought. Jeffpw 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, though I'm not sure what they would need to message them for. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is easy to overlook things on a watchlist. So if those interested in Peer Reviewing happened to miss the listing, the nominator could just message them (can you tell I really want to do some Peer Reviewing here?). Jeffpw 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
A bit. I have a peer review of Andrew Van de Kamp going through at the moment: shall I relist it here as well (it's a bit of a car crash at the moment, with tenses and standards everwhere - I need to seriously work it), to give our peer review a go? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! I am off to bed now, but I will give it a look tomorrow. Jeffpw 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added Same-sex marriage in Spain to the PR request list, if that's okay. :) Cheers Raystorm 11:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I've given it a review. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we include the Peer review area in our "list of departments" on the main project page? I was looking for it and couldn't find it without coming here first. Jeffpw 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I simply haven't added it to all the places I should yet. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal issues.

I'm on the final leg of sprucing up the Portal before submitting it to review, but I've got a bit stuck. I need to create a topics sections a la Template:London topics, but I just opened all the windows and everything and just realised I have absolutely no idea what to put in it. I don't know how to group the topics. What do you think should be the parent topics? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you poach the parent topics from the London list and other portals? The headings on the London portal contain many that would apply just as well here,a and other portals probably have a simliar wealth of topic headers we can use. Jeffpw 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll make a start at Template:LGBT topics. I suggest brainstorming headings and articles that come under them. Then we can format the page once we're happy with contents... WJBscribe -WJB talk- 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks man, I needed that push... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

Hi, All! I've just finished a bot that will help update our "To-Do" list at the top of this page. It reviews all articles that have our "LGBTProject" tag on their talk page, and if they have any cleanup tags on them (Thanks, Dev!), it makes a note of them and organizes them on the full to-do list. Then it takes a random sampling of 20 pages and puts them in the "To-Do" box.

If you want to put our To-Do box on your own page, you can use the syntax {{Todo-Named | WikiProject LGBT studies| Wikipedia}}.

I'll be running the bot and updating the list about once a week, and if it works correctly, I'll probably automate it to run without my intervention.

Enjoy! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Core Biographies

Pity they're all male. Is there any reason for that?

And Francis Bacon? I'd never heard that one. -Emiellaiendiay 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Only that the project is still very young and needs input :) By all means, be bold :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They're all male because all the LGBT core biographies were male. Not to denigrate my own sex or anything, but I suspect it's because women didn't really make earth-shattering achievements that revolutionised their time until recently. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm adding Gertrude Stein and Virginia Woolf to the list. They're just as significant--if not more so, taking the long view--than Andy Warhol. I realize that the project mentions "core biographies"as listed on Wikipedia 1.0, but I feel we as members of this project need to define what we think of as important people in LGBT history, and make them our core biographies. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss this or even revert my change, but I have to agree the list as it stands seems both sexist and exclusionary. Jeffpw 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Best take it up with WP:COREBIO though, since that's where I made the list from. It was only to give people some ideas to work from. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. We could always designate it as WP core bios and others deemed top priority by our project.Aleta 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality vs. sexual orientation

This has been driving me crazy for the longest time. Contrary to popular belief, sexuality and sexual orientation are not interchangeable. Could we add this to something that we should be aware of when reading, writing, and editing LGBT-related articles? Thank you. -Emiellaiendiay 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like it if sexual IDENTITY - or self-identity - could be explored more. Especially for a bisexual person, the terms 'sexuality', 'sexual orientation' and 'sexual identity' are problematic - since bisexuality is, in language and many people's understanding, simply an orientation and a set of sexual behaviours. White hotel 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to task list?

The pederasty article has some serious NPOV issues. I realise that it's struggling against modern western culture's rereading of pederastic relationships as necessarily abusive, but right now it reads like a NAMBLA flyer. White hotel 09:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Members and new ideas

Can we change the members section so that the main list transcludes onto the main page? I've tried it myself but it keeps bringing the blurb and navigation box with it. And congratulations to us for near doubling the membership in a month!

Also, as I'm sure many of you are aware, I regularly trawl other WikiProjects looking for new ideas we can use or adapt ourselves. I maintain a list of possible ideas as well as initiatives of my own that I'm mulling over until I have a workable proposal. I have two new ideas to present to you:

  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Getting Involved - I was already thinking about constructing an accessible page like this to provide helpful info for newbies or hesitant editors, but this is marvellous. While inviting others, I've had several users unsure of what they can do to contribute, so a page like this would probably be quite helpful.
  2. A Quarterly Evaluation - Every three months we could send out a questionnaire (attach a collapsible link to the bottom of our newsletter or something) to our active members to get some ideas of how we're doing in our goals. It's all very well building up the project but if it doesn't translate to some high quality LGBT articles it's meaningless, right? Potential questions could include: Have you used any WP:LGBT processes? Have you found them useful? Are there any aspects of WP:LGBT which you feel particularly help Wikipedia? Are there any we need to improve on? Do you have any new ideas for how WP:LGBT can further contribute to Wikipedia? Overall, do you feel WP:LGBT is successful in improving articles within its scope?

Any thoughts and/or criticism would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • OK. I've sorted the member lit so it transcludes. For future ref, you need to include <noinclude> and </noinclude> either side of the bits you don't want to include when its reproduced on another page. To address your ideas:
    1. I like the idea of the Getting Involved page, with many new users joining it would be good to harness to provide more explanation. We should start work on our own version.
    2. I'm not overly excited by the evaluation. For one it involves deciding who the active contributors are and excluding others. And I guess I always see these sorts of questionnaires as more of a chore than actually being productive. There are many talkpages were people can raise concerns. The evaluation seems a bit bureacratic to me and may distract from actually improving LGBT articles. WJBscribe 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was going to create an inactive members list when I send out the February newsletter (you can easily tell because the newsletters pile up next to each other), which is defined as someone who hasn't edited for three months at all. That was what I meant by sending it out to active members - obviously it would be a bit silly to simply send it to people like you, me, Satyr, Jeff, Coel, etc. because we're happy to post on the talkpage until the cows come home. It would be more for the members who edit and rarely post here but could do with some different form of support that we don't know about. I'm kinda concerned that we may not having as much effect as we could when it comes to improving LGBT articles and if we aren't, I want to know, and I want to know how we could fix that. It would be optional, so I don't think distracting from our goal would be a problem.

You say you see these sorts of questionnaires - do you mean on Wikipedia, or off-wiki? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant off-Wiki but don't let my dislike of questioannaires put you off! Besides, when expressed that way I do see some merit in the idea. As for improving articles I take your point, but a lot of our energy has being going into fixing things with the project, working on the portal etc. Those are one off jobs and once done should free us up to get more involved in article contribs. WJBscribe 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Open tasks template

I've completed an early draft of our open tasks template here - I am not convinced by the colour scheme and there's an irritating line down the right hand side that I can't fix, but we have a template. Thoughts? Should anything be added? Removed? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should remove Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination) from Deletion Discussions. Seems the discussion is over (result was keep). Cheers Raystorm 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact I think all the discussion have now closed. Wow, we're gonna need Co-ordinators soon if this daily check list keeps growing... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do new article requests just go directly into the open tasks template now? — coelacan talk — 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't directly transclude the requested articles section, because it's set out too far, so you do have to add requested articles by hand. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just checking. — coelacan talk — 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

Is the portrayal of LGBT characters in fiction within the scope of this Wikiproject? ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Raystorm 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What about works by gay creators (literature, art, etc.) that does not have a gay bent to it? For example, Oscar Wilde's play Lady Windermere's Fan, while not addressing gay themes, it's by a gay playwright. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good! Then what do we think of Category:Fictional LGBT characters which recently was given bisexual, lesbian and transgender subcategories. I fought to have them upmerged but that failed since people didn't understand the difficulty in defining specific orientation and some of the difficulties it might create. Now, as it stands, gay men are unrepresented by the category system and it makes some sort of statement that only the ambiguous and gay count as true "LGBT". Should a Category:Fictional gay men category be made, because I'm sort of worried about the wording.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This category bothers me. Not the gay aspect, but the idea of creating separate articles for fictional characters. The notabilty guideline for fiction Wikipedia:Notabilty (fiction) states, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. Adhering to this guideline, most of these articles should not exist. Looking through the articles, you'll find that most simply provide the story behind the character, rarely do they break out of the fictional universe of the story. Those that do, especially in regard to stirring controversy in the real world (as some gay characters are apt to do), deserve a separate article. (now stepping off my soapbox) Ok, as for the issue at hand, I would suggest that this category not be broken down any further, indeed, categories such as fictional bisexuals and lesbians should be upmerged here. Just my 2 cents. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem Treybien (talk · contribs) has created the gay men category. I will populate it and consider nominating all of the LGBT by specific orientation subcategories for merger.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination against LGBT people

From my work on Template:LGBT topics and discussions with another editor, it appears there is no article which covers discrimination LGBT people generally encounter, presently or historically. I mean in terms of housing, employment, welfare support. It seems like an important topic. Has anyone seen it and I simply failed to find it? If not, do others agree its a fairly significant gulf in our coverage? WJBscribe -WJB talk- 15:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the information is there, but it needs gathering into one place. Societal attitudes towards homosexuality exists, but it could probably do with splitting into "Historical societal attitudes towards homosexuality" and "Current societal attitudes towards homosexuality". Great work on the template, btw. I've added it to the Portal and it don't half look pretty. Wanna reply to my proposals above? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay topics template

I just found this template: Template:LGBT Romania. Should we do this for other countries? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I'm ambivalent about that. IMHO, time creating country-specific LGBT templates and then tagging articles could be better spent. But I wouldn't oppose creating them. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Satyr. I think it's a little much. We already have too many tags cluttering up articles as it is. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks

I want to thank all the people who have helped improving Same-sex marriage in Spain lately, via peer review or directly editing the page. The article looks really good now, and that's thanks to you all. I've sent it off to FAC now, and who knows what will happen there, but I just wanted to take a minute to thank the people that have made it possible that this article stands a chance at FAC. You know who you are. I alone wouldn't have succeeded. Cheers and kudos to all! :) Raystorm 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage template

I've become aware of a slight problem with our project tag for talk pages. Most talkpage tags (including project ones) have a parametre to turn it into a small version on the right side of the page. Which helps when talk pages have vast numbers of tags. This should be activated by using: {{LGBTProject|class=B|small=yes}} but our template doesn't have a smaller version. I haven't been able to figure out how to adapt the template myself. Is anyone else able to do this? Would be much appreciated... WJBscribe 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That functionality is already built in. Take a look at Alan Turing's talk page for an example. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, OK. Dunno why that didn't work for me. Never mind, glad to know it works. Cheers, WJBscribe 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a pep talk.

I just wanted to conratulate everybody on the current success of the project. We've gone from being a moribund organisation that only really started back in November, and since then we have more than quadrupled our membership and acquired more infrastructure than many much older and experienced Wikiprojects, as well as tagging over three thousand articles. I see next month as a consolidation of what we have achieved so far - we acquired more than half our members in the last month, and they have not yet received a newsletter and many have had limited contact with the Wikiproject so far, so we need to start encouraging people to use the processes that we have established in the past two months. I think it is fantastic that we currently have two FACs going through at the moment. February seems like a time for tweaking, for developing our community building processes, such the quilt and the getting involved page, for welding the community that has formed together so LGBT articles are the better improved for it. We have a long way to go (I, personally, will not be resting until we have beaten MILHIST in member numbers and FAs), but I think the achievements of the past two months is something to be justifiably proud of, and I look forward to our future. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yaaay us! By the way, where's our quilt? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Eedo Bee

I'm working on Billy Tipton for Jumpaclass, and encountered Eedo Bee, who is removing the WikiProject tag on the grounds that everyone knows that Tipton was straight. I checked her contributions, and she seems to be removing WikiProject LGBT studies tags from quite a few articles. She has a userbox that says "This user is against LGBT issues and Queer Theory," so I think that she may be influenced by some personal bias. Anyone want to help clean up after her? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll spend a little time doing it. I have an hour or so before I have to go to work. May I suggest leaving a message on her talk page,and also possibly reporting this on WP:ANI? Jeffpw 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a male. Thank you for assuming my gender, FisherQueen and Jeffpw. How ironic eh? I am not against you for personal bias, and I would appreciate you not to label attacks at me. What I am against is the blatantly liberal way in which the LGBT Banner is posted on top of many articles which bear no relevance to LGBT issues. Members of the Greek Divine Pantheon were on the list of LGBT for goodness' sake! They have no relevance to LGBT issues, even if they had relationships with members of the same sex. There should be a greater amount of dicretion on the part of LGBT Project members to avoid further mistakes regarding labelling of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs)

I have reported this at WP:ANI. Jeffpw 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"They have no relevance to LGBT issues, even if they had relationships with members of the same sex." If they had relationships with the same sex, then they are covered by us. They don't have to be LGBT activists to be under our banner. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I wonder if Eedo Bee misunderstands what project tagging means? I've left a note on his talk page explaining that project tagging doesn't mean people own articles and to explain the rationale behind project tagging. Maybe that will calm things down in future. WJBscribe 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I tried to explain it to him when we were talking about the problem on my talk page, but I'm not sure that he got it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So you did. I hadn't seen that bit of discussion. Oh well, another try won't hurt. The problem seems to be that he assumes we make articles we edit pro-LGBT, which isn't true. And is actually a pretty strong accusation given the number of people about whom he's assuming bad faith. WJBscribe 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. 91 and counting! We'll be in triple figures this month I reckon. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, WP:BIOGRAPHY has 200,081 articles - statistically speaking, that means there are 12,005 LGBT people out there that I expect us to tag. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ma'am, yes ma'am! Right away! :) Raystorm 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Update. User:Eedo Bee decided to delete the various bits of advice on his talkpage and tag the article Pedophilia as within this project's scope. I warned him against continuing in this vain but he chose to disregard my warning. He has now been blocked by Gwernol... WJBscribe 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen his comments about Pedophilia and the LGBT project at his talk page (and a few of his other contribs). *Shakes head* Do you think he'll do as advised and stay away from those articles (i.e, LGBTproject-related) in which he is clearly unable to stay NPOV once he returns from the block? Raystorm 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
When you say this guy is being blocked, does that mean he is being denied access to edit the wiki? --Clay 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A block prevents a user from editing any page on Wikipedia except their own talkpage. In this case, the block was for one week. WjBscribe 07:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is a week long prohibition against this guy really long enough? --Clay 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
He's a very new user who apparently didn't understand how Wikipedia works. The admin who gave him the block emphasised that if he disrupts again the block will be extended indefinitely. I, at least, am assuming good faith on the part of EedoBee.Jeffpw 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Me, too. I think this guy has the ability to learn to be a useful editor, and the potential to be useful, if he uses this week to lurk a bit and read some policy. I kind of hope he'll come back and contribute productively. If he doesn't, of course, he can always be permablocked. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read the Admin's rebuke on Eedo Bee's talk page and I couldn't help but detect that he still has a strong sense of belligerence in his response to the rebuke. To me he is another person who doesn't understand or even cares to broaden his understanding of LGBT issues. I have seen his type before and most them are collected in the more fundamentalist wings of Christianity, where lies the strongest opposition to LGBT's receiving the same rights as everyone else. In the hopes of shedding some light and truth as to what the Bible really says about homosexuality I created this user subpage; I thought about maybe directing his attention here, but decided such an attempt would be futile. --Clay 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to convert Eedo Bee to my way of thinking, on this or any other question. Sure, I'd like it if there were fewer homophobes in the world, but he doesn't have to join PFLAG to edit Wikipedia, or even change his beliefs on the subject of gay people. He just has to follow the rules, like the rest of us. I have equally passionate antipathy for Exodus International, but I follow the rules and don't put my rage in the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the mixed reactions, ranging from patronising to assuming religious beliefs. Firstly, I would like to add that the link regarding Bible and the Homosexuality really is a manipulation on the Bible. Despite being a Catholic, I'm ready to admit that lots of people manipulate the bible; most done by well meaning Christians! This is just a more transparent effort, though I must say, it was a good try. Secondly, I do not need to be converted or whatnot, as I'm not a homophobe as such. I would just like to outline that I have a distaste for LGBT Culture and its propagation. I have no issue with people who are homosexuals, though I will admit I find the homosexual aspect to be physically unappealing, to say the least. My distaste for LGBT culture has nothing to do with my Religious beliefs, but rather stems from my abhor for promiscuity (Like it or not, the sexual revolution and LGBT emergence go hand in hand). Thirdly, I am willing to concede that I erred on the issue of deleting banners relating to LGBT, though I do think that it is innappropriatly displayed on a number of articles, and there are a number of articles that ought have the banner. Eedo Bee 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Assuming religious beliefs"? You have Catholic userboxes on your userpage and a sentence that says you are against "LGBT issues". There seem little assumptions to be made. I don't appreciate the promiscuity that accompanies much of LGBT culture, but you have a clear abhorrence for all things LGBT, not just our alleged sexual liberation. Having said that, I appreciate your confessing to your mistake and hope we can all work productively together in the future. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You assumed my distaste for LGBT culture because of religion, which another user called "the more fundamentalist wings of Christianity". The Catholic Church is not a fundimentalist wing of Christianity! Excluding the esoteric Christian churches, it is perhaps one of the least Fundimental Churches, if not religions, in the world.

As for this clear abhorrence to all things LGBT, where did you obtain this information? How do you know my position on ALL things LGBT? What are "all" things LGBT? That's a wide base of things to abhor, you must agree? Accept that the various positions on all things LGBT are not dichotomous! Eedo Bee 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage says "this user is against LGBT issues and queer theory", it does not say "LGBT culture" - you are very clearly trying to get out of being pinned with a label you yourself have put out there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am against Queer Theory. So what? I'll change it so it says theory, issues and culture. It also says I am an ageless immortal, do you believe that? If you want to call me a homophobe, I don't care. Stop using weasal words like "you are very clearly". It is tiresome and overemphatic. If you are going to make accusations, back it up with citations. So have A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Go on wikiproject kindness man, give it a go. I really don't care if you are going to call me whatever you think I am. Just don't say it to me. Eedo Bee 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am already a member of the Kindness Campaign. Quite frankly, we are holding this discussion on the LGBT talkpage, not your talkpage, and thus you evidently do care about what I am saying or you wouldn't keep coming back. "Well, see if I care" is horribly immature, btw. If you don't want me to "say it to [you]" then leave. Simple. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's time we should stop feeding the troll (Comment removed by User:Agne27 as potential PA) and just watch carefully to make sure he doesn't disrupt any more of the LGBT articles (or, for that matter, tagging articles like Pedophilia as within the project's scope). At this point, it's clear that continuing conversation with him will have little to know real effect. CaveatLectorTalk 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with CaveatLector. Let's ignore him, even if it means he'll get the last word here (so what?). We'll just check his contribs so he doesn't pull another Pedophilia stunt, and that's it. No sense in discussing if he's a homophobe or not here. Cheers Raystorm 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
PS:Dev, remember that imitation is the best kind of flattery hehe. ;) [4] Cheers Raystorm 15:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I should be allowed to have my say without it being removed, deleted, altered or changed. Eedo Bee 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Category:HIV/AIDS

Question... Should Category:HIV/AIDS be placed under Category:LGBT? Personally, I feel like it should, but I realize HIV/AIDS isn't solely an LGBT issue, and I realize some people have strong feelings on the subject. So is there any opposition to doing that? Or any suggestions? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As it has much significance to the community and was originally known as the "Gay Plague", I'd say include it. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There are other categories that it can be claced into as well. It's not as if including it in the LGBT cat means that's the only place it can be. :) Aleta 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitely needs to be included somewhere in our project. It had an enormous impact on the LGBT community, not only as a society in generally,but also as an instrument of political re-awakening. Jeffpw 08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this a huge issue either way. But I would note that our practice has previously been not to include articles on HIV/AIDS and related topics within the LGBT project. My personal view is that although articles which specifically cover the incidence and effect of HIV/AIDS on the gay Community are within the scope of the project, those articles etc. on the illness itself are not. WJBscribe 10:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So to clarify, WJBscribe, you're saying that we should make our own AIDS category, and only include articles like Gay Men's Health Crisis and ACTUP, and that AZT would not be included in the category? If so, that makes sense, to me. Jeffpw 11:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. And I was wondering if there were particular articles on the Gay plague or HIV and the gay community which seem like topics we should cover. I'd rather we had coverage of LGBT issues of HIV/AIDS than simply tagged all HIV/AIDS related articles... WJBscribe 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and medical science

Gay plague redirects to this bizarre article. At the moment it includes:

  1. Is homosexuality genetically caused?
  2. HIV/AIDS as "gay disease"
  3. Reproduction for same-sex couples

Surely we should have separate articles on the topics rather than connect them because they all involve medicine? WJBscribe 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does seem overly broad, and includes items not really relating to the title (eg: hospital visitation). It could do with a rewrite, or a merge of content into appropriate articles, and then a deletion. It also needs citations. It currently has none, which is worrisome for an article that purports to be a scholarly overview of the subject. Jeffpw 11:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems Ed Poor started the article in March 2003, called and about Gay disease and it has since evolved into the present mess... WJBscribe 11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Following the nomination of this article at AfD, it has been moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science. I suggest that instead of trying to recreate a sourced version of this article, it be split into the following articles:

Any thoughts? WJBscribe 04:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have some notes that could help for the potential 'homosexuality and genetics' article. I had to do a revision of the different studies on homosexuality (including genetics) for an oral presentation at my university. I'll have to dig them out (I did it two, almost three years ago), but I think they could be of use. They're referenced and all, which is a biggie right? Cheers Raystorm 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

mainpage and new department

I've rearranged the sections on the mainpage in accordance with Aleta's suggestion above. Anyone is welcome to revert if they don't like.

BTW, I want to propose a new department, that of "Community". It would function rather like other WikiProjects' Outreach departments, so with the newsletter and how to recruit, but also with the quilt and other potential community-building activities (as long as they also contribute to the wiki, we don't want a gay Esperanza on our hands - pink and green clash sooo badly). Also, an IRC channel similar to that of the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject might be an idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the reorganization, Dev!  :) Aleta 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Men's Rights page and Same Sex marriage

Hi, I'm Cailil and I work over on Project Gender Studies. I recently came across a section of the Men's Rights article about same sex marriage which was in my view dubious and unverifiable. The user who posted it claims that Same Sex marriage would be mainly funded by straight men - he is the writer who published this material and therefore claims it is factual. I am being attacked because I questioned its inclusion and verifiability. If any one has any views or would like to comment the dispute is here

Dispute over Polish article.

The Prime Minister of Poland was recently outed as a homosexual - but given that both he and Poland for that matter are deeply anti-gay, it's not surprising that there is a user at Jarosław Kaczyński who really doesn't want me to add the LGBT people from Poland category. I'm getting close to 3RR, so I'm going to stop now, but someone else might want to go reason with him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Another person just undid my edit (edit summary "they are not allegations. The Polish secret service says he's gay, and Lech Wałęsa has mentioned it twice, and janaslaw has never denied it, even though every newspaper makes jokes about it. He's gay!") with ".no, you are". Delightful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I left a note about personal attacks in my edit summary. But I'm not convinced this one can be tagged or categorised as LGBT. Given the controversial claim, WP:BLP applies and there aren't enough references available. All I can find are from gay media groups. Given the PM's stance one would expect international news sources to have reported on it if it was clear cut. Absent of that, I don't think we're on strong enough ground to decide he's gay. He has been strongly accused of that, which is reported in the article. But I don't think we can say the evidence is conclusive. WJBscribe 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
WJB, even disregarding whether he is gay or not, his stance on homosexuality, ands the statements he has made about gay rights, is enough to qualify him, as a person of interest for our project. Jeffpw 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right Jeff. He's clearly within the scope of the project. Its the categorising him as an LGBT person which concerns me. WJBscribe 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me just voice my opinion here, since the person in question unfortunately comes from my country. I would not, ever, absolutely, categorise him as an LGBT person. His comments aside, he clearly has nothing to do with the movement. --Ouro 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ouro, can you pull up some Polish newspaper articles about the controversy surrounding his sexuality? It would be helpful to have Polish sources for that section of the article. Jeffpw 16:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me tell you a bit about myself. I do not trust the polish newspapers and do not read them, I much rather prefer to pull my news from the Polish Press Agency or the BBC. Second, I do not at all dabble in politics, except for my deep belief that all politicians should be murder victims. This issue is quite controversial and it is not an easy thing finding sources that'd be (semi) impartial or objective, but I'll see what I can do.
Dev, regarding your question from my talk page, he's definitely homophobic, the other one I'm not sure and for myself I do not really care, however I will try to look up some sources for you guys. --Ouro 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Gay and lesbian are pejorative?

Hi there. I got a curious edit in the Same-sex marriage in Spain article. It's edit summary was: ("gays" is unencyclopedic, and every case of it should be deleted. it's like saying "negro" for africans.)

This has me reeling. Is this true? Have I inadvertedly been using a pejorative term throughout the entire article? Should I use 'homosexual associations' instead of 'gay associations', for example? I wanted to ask here before changing the article further or reverting the previous edit, because I'm the first to admit I don't know the full story about how those two terms came to use. Maybe they did had negative connotations at the beginning, but now?

If anyone can shed any light on this, it'd be much appreciated. :) Cheers Raystorm 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Gay is the currently accepted term that is used in the English language. It is in no way pejorative that I have ever heard. Language changes, obviously, but if this has changed, I have not heard of a more acceptable word that is used. And his comparison was strange, too. Africans refers to a person based on their geographic location. Negro refers to a race. Further, doing a major copyedit without discussion is always frowned upon, especially while it is under consideration as a WP:FAC. Jeffpw 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw those edits and I think the editor explained himself very badly. Gay is in no way pejorative, but it is more informal than homosexual. So referring to "a gay" is more informal than "a homosexual". That's what I think he meant when he said encyclopedic and that's why I didn't revert him. Incidentally "gay association" is fine because it's an accepted phrase, but "gays and lesbians adopting" was rightly changed to "homosexuals adopting". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The editor replied about it on my talk page. Jeffpw 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I saw the edits he did and they weren't bad. I was just worried about having to take out the words 'gay and lesbian' from the entire article. 'Informal' I can understand, but when I read that edit summary, I did get concerned. :) Raystorm 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I find "a gay" (as a noun) to be totally wrong. But not because it's pejorative (though as Dev says, it is less formal), but because it irks me grammatically. Gay is foremost an adjective - using it as a noun rubs my fur the wrong way. But that's just my $0.02US. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Satyr on this one. I much prefer gay as an adjective e.g. gay or lesbian people oppose this or John Smith is openly gay etc. It is acceptable to use it encyclopedicly because that is the term gay people often use to describe themselves. It doesn't sound right as a noun though e.g. gays and lesbians oppose this or John Smith is a gay. Here homosexuals reads better to me... WJBscribe 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who said that is simply incorrect. The article on "gay" explains that people are taught to say gay and not homosexual because homosexual is too clinical. Gay is the better, simpler word.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add — in discussions of marriage and adoption, "same-sex couple" is generally more accurate than "gay couple," "homosexuals, "gays," etc., since it does not indicate sexual orientation (i.e. bisexuals are not homosexual but may have relationships with the same sex). -Emiellaiendiay 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! LGBT Template

How do I convert the LGBT template in Same-sex marriage in Spain (you know, the rainbow-coloured one with the links to other same-sex marriage in other countries' articles)? I need to make it horizontal instead of vertical. I have no idea how to do this. I also have to reduce the width in the legislation infobox, and again, I'm at a loss on how to do this.

I swear I'll cover in barnstars to whoever can do these things for me. Really. Please! Raystorm 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created Template:SSMflat, which may help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I love it. THANK YOU! :D Raystorm 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you need any help, let me know. I've become something of a not-quite-expert in coding templates :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Really? Well, I've been asked to reduce the width in the legislation infobox in Same-sex marriage in Spain. If you could do that, I'd be really grateful! :) Raystorm 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Passing along a comment (at my talkpage) from one of my FAC reviewers:

I'm also troubled that the LGBT Project doesn't seem to be up on Wiki guidelines - I started adjusting WP:LAYOUT issues throughout the articles, and grew tired - aesthetics are important, but they don't trump GTL - maybe you can get them to work on those issues? I created the See also template for your article.

Raystorm 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Think you could get Sandy to explain a little bit? I totally don't understand... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
From his edits, Sandy is objecting to portal-style templates like {{LGBT}} being on the mainpage of articles. I can't find a rule against this in WP:LAYOUT, does anyone know where it says we shouldn't have them. WJBscribe 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked Sandy about it and got this back:

"I put your stuff from Raystorm's article into a template, and was going through some of the other articles to add it, and found a lot of layout issues - external links in strange places, lots of See also stuff in infoboxes, etc. My concern is actually more of a general one - that gynormous infoboxes and See also templates are taking over Wiki, contributing to load-time issues - Projects should keep a close eye on that, and keep tight standards about infoboxes. I was surprised that Raystorm had been told to add that info per aesthetics - yes, aesthetics matter, but GTL and other guidelines matter more; See also should stay See also. I'm not sure what standards exist for infoboxes, but I should spend some time investigating - the gynormous ones taking over Wiki are a concern. We focus on how prose size affects load time, but some template creep is getting out of control (more so on other Projects than LGBT). I also found a LGBT portal in one article - there's some instruction somewhere about Wiki meta info belonging on talk pages only - again, I don't know where to find this info, though. I've got to figure out what standards exist, since too many articles are really getting cluttered." Personally, I think this is a matter of personal preferences rather than a guideline issue (which are, after all, only guidelines) and I certainly find those templates most helpful when I'm reading articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless Sandy establishes a concensus to support his view, I don't think he should remove them from articles and its inappropriate to hold it against an FA nom. If his view becomes policy- fine. But to my knowledge it is not at the moment. WJBscribe 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Actually, I'm not in favor of "see also" type templates on article pages. If the article contains information about something, it'll be a wikilink - if not, it's distracting. As an example, I really dislike having three "see also" templates that clutter Homosexuality. Infoboxes that contain a synopsis of the information that's on the page (like Infobox Biography) I can deal with - it gives me a USA Today view and I can read more if I want to. But then again, I don't go around removing the "see-also" ones from pages. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm somewhere in a middle ground. I like having them to a certain extent, but also think they can get out-of-hand. I completely agree with Satyt about Homosexuality - it's way to cluttered with the boxes. I guess I'd want to limit (as a rule of thumb, not a Rule) them to one on a page, generally. Aleta 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I got this back:

Raystorm, I checked with someone far more knowledgeable than I on Wiki guidelines, and there is no specific policy against using navigational templates at the top of the article. I still believe the way the article is currently structured is better (infobox at top, navigation of See also article links horizontally at bottom), but that is not the basis for an object, since there is no policy - just wanted to let you know so you could choose. Regards

Raystorm 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Hi gang. I've created articles for ball culture and banjee and have much-expanded the article Imperial Court System. Does anyone want to take a look and rate them? The SatyrBot has listed them all as start class but they are, at least I think, pretty thorough. Thanks. House of Scandal 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I upgraded them all to B on the basis of their length, images, and references. I definitely think you should consider going for GA if posssble. Keep up the good work! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the Imperial Court article (loved it, by the way), and see the references need expanding. If you have trouble doing it, let me know and I will assist you. I find working on refs....relaxing. Jeffpw 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay - that's just weird. IMNSHO. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar ribbon

Btw, we now have a Barnstar ribbon, for anyone who uses them: . Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that have too many stripes? What about having it which the usual 6 stripes used for the flag since 1979- perhaps horizonally as well? WJBscribe 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Vertically is the standard for barnstar ribbons, and if you really want six stripes, you need to go take it up with Azatoth. Personally, I'm happy with the current one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That is so pretty, I love it. Don't hit the newbie around here, but what might we use it for? Psicorps 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Barnstars and then Wikipedia:Ribbons. Barnstars are "appreciation awards" spontaneously given out from one editor to another for especially helpful work. Some people display their barnstars on their user page, and when someone has a lot of them, they may replace them with ribbons to take up less space. — coelacan talk — 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Will have to try and do something worthy of one now! Psicorps 11:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Affinity

I just created an article on the Sarah Waters novel Affinity; if anyone would like to contribute it would be much appreciated. -Emiellaiendiay 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that people have added templates, images, categories, etc. to the article. I'll assume it was people from here — thank you! I've expanded the text, and now it looks like a real article!

-Emiellaiendiay 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FA!!!!

OMG, Same-sex marriage in Spain is a FA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! X-D *Crying* My very first FA... Raystorm 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere congratulations, Raystorm. You worked very hard on this article, had a difficult time during the nomination process, and deserve the FA. Jeffpw 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto the Congrats, Raystorm! Nice Job!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys/gals! :-) I'm exhausted after mindlessly formatting refs left to right (among other funny mind-numbing chores at FAC), I can't wait to start writing again an article (any article) and doing research for it, which is what I really love doing! Cheers! :-) Raystorm 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And WOW - The Well of Loneliness too!!! Congratulations, Celithemis!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto congrats, Celithemis! :-) Exhausting business, isn't it? But what a reward! Raystorm 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed The Well of Loneliness also made FA. Congratulations to you, too, Celithemis! Ouyr project is really racking up the awards now. And Raystorm, after an article I wrote got an FA, I was too exhausted by the whole business to really enjoy it. I may write another article, but I will leave it to others to nominate it if they wish, and will not take part in the process. I agree that writing and researching is the most enjoyable part. Jeffpw 14:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I must admit a similar thought crossed my mind at one point, writing an article and letting someone else go through the FAC process. :P But I don't know, can it actually get any worse than what I had to hear (or read) at the SSM in Spain one? (Please don't say yes!). :D Cheers Raystorm 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Congrats Raystorm and Celithemis!Parammon 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, and congratulations, Raystorm! —Celithemis 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_3&oldid=1249344996"