Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

ReportBar and to-do list

I was thinking that it would be useful to have a more compact navigation template for WP:LGBTQ+ project reports, so I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/ReportBar (now located at the top of this page). At the same time, I thought the to-do list (also above) would be perhaps more useful if it focused on active tasks that we could keep up-to-date, rather than mostly being a static summary of WP:LGBTQ+/Editing (notwithstanding that I was the one to gum it up in the first place).

The to-do list now has three dynamic entries for articles needing quality assessment, peer review requests, and articles needing expert attention. These should only appear when the relevant category is not empty, and will show the number of pages in the category. I've removed the static entries that linked to reports now listed in the ReportBar, and added one manual task to the list.

Please let me know what you think.--Trystan (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, maybe we also want to dynamically link to the Template:Peer review requests that are currently linked in the WP:LGBTQ+/Alerts already as those are not as commonly tracked by people? Raladic (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That would definitely be more useful, but there isn't a dedicated category for LGBTQ+ studies articles with peer review requests under the new system, so I am not sure how it could be done.

Given that the project-specific peer review process is long since defunct, and unlikely to be revived given the existence of a centralized WP:Peer review process, it would make sense to deprecate the peer-review parameter in the {{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} project banner entirely.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, so I guess we can't have it a dynamic list and only use what the Bot detects with the venn diagram of the generic peer review and the article being tagged for WP:LGBTQ+ as it lists it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Article alerts#Peer reviews page, so I guess we could only place a static link to that section. Raladic (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit a thon?

Hi everyone. I see edit-a-thons for a lot of topics around, usually in regards to female biographies. Is there one coming up for LGBTQ+ pages? If not, would it be possible to create an edit a thon for LGBTQ+ pages? Amethystloucks (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We have WP:Wiki Loves Pride, which is an ongoing yearly campaign to improve LGBTQ+ articles.

Pinging @Another Believer who spearheads that one to see if maybe we can have an edit-a-thon under that banner as you proposed :) Raladic (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! Amethystloucks (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Trans Kids Deserve Better for review

Hello everyone, several of us have created the draft of an article about the youth trans rights organization Trans Kids Deserve Better. Since the article describes an organization that has been notable on media during last several days, I think it's worth an urgent review. Antitransphobe (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT+ is hiring!

Wikimedia LGBT+ is hiring for an Executive director and for a Membership coordinator. More information at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+/Hiring — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity and Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexual orientation

I recently concluded a conversation on Talk:Elagabalus#Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors about the inclusion of LGBTQ categories on their page even though their gender identity and orientation are disputed. This idea was rejected because Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity is already listed on the article, but that editor suggested that another category could be created for disputed sexualities. I was wondering if this met WP:CATLGBT or if it would be inappropriate to carry over this type of historical interpretation. This category would not be used to describe living or recently deceased people, only historical figures who were not able to come out. Rylee Amelia (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea in principle. It makes sense and helps group things together, and it neatly avoids debates about whether an LGBTQ category should be applied at all. Lewisguile (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I just created the Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality. Feel free to expand it if you'd like! Rylee Amelia (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the category is useful and support its application, but it will likely be necessary to get consensus to change the final paragraph of WP:CATLGBT if it is to survive. That advice in my view only makes sense when applied to BLPs, but the wording unfortunately does not reflect that.

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity barely survived a deletion proposal a few years ago, so there is some hope, but unfortunately a fair number of editors do not seem to recognize the benefit of making it possible to find historical individuals on this basis, despite it being defining for many of them.--Trystan (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already ran into problems with people reverting my edits and citing WP:OR and claiming these are fringe theories. I'm not sure what type of category discussion would need to be opened, whether it be nominated for deletion or some form of reclassification? Rylee Amelia (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting a couple days and seeing if someone wants to challenge the category itself. If not, it isn't reasonable for what appears to be primarily a single editor to argue against use of the category on articles where there are extensive, well-sourced subsections (and sometimes entire subarticles) discussing the subject's orientation.--Trystan (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. That section in WP:CATLGBT should clearly only apply to BLPs. The wording is also borderline offensive and seems to be quite outdated—e.g., allegations and suspected suggest being described as even possibly LGBTQ is a slur/bad thing.

It would be much better to refocus that section on not saying things that are untrue/not verifiable, including their gender identity or sexuality, and to leave a caveat for long-dead/historical figures to be grouped under a category such as the one mentioned above. And we should temove language such as suspected and alleged while we're at it.

If anyone raises this on the relevant talk page, I will support changing the wording. It seems very unfortunate as is. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I've proposed a change.--Trystan (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Seen and supported. Lewisguile (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The same happened with me in Edward II of England yet his talk page still shows this project tagged. Other wikipedias also categorize him as LGBT. GustaPapp (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely a good example that shows the need for the new category. It's one of the main defining aspects of Edward II's treatment in reliable sources and is discussed at length in his article, but was captured nowhere in the categories.--Trystan (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

People have been talking about his sexuality for decades. Madness. Lewisguile (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The article on Henry Benedict Stuart covers his homosexuality and mentions a number of his lovers by name. The categories do not even mention his sexuality. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that editors propagating this category make proposals on talk pages to generate consensus, especially on the articles for high-profile figures or vital articles. I'm also concerned the scope of the category may be overly vague: at least, I don't think it is a good idea to conceive of it at its maximum logical scope (i.e. inclusion of any figure upon any mention of potential non-heteronormativity in the article) Remsense ‥ 论 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think judicial application is a good idea. I.e., those articles with well-sourced subsections (or sub-articles) discussing the subject's sexuality, such that there was a clear deficiency in the applied categories not covering a significant aspect of the topic.--Trystan (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that's problematic and potentially a fundamental disservice to the concept. Categories should have clear criteria, and overbroad categories cease to be defining and cease to be meaningful altogether. Have we forgotten how diverse sexuality and identity are? Why are we smashing every historical example that falls through a sieve together into two piles? Remsense ‥ 论 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"inclusion of any figure upon any mention of potential non-heteronormativity in the article"

Well, it's about what the RSes say, isn't it? If it's notable enough to get a significant subsection on a page, then it's notable enough for a category.

I don't see any realistic harm, anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't fashion workable categories out of those minima; those categories get deleted for being worthless and counterproductive. See the "defining" link above: "no harm in it" is not a compelling argument, nor one borne out by experience. Given the issues I've brought up, I'd just as easily insist there's no harm in not doing it. Remsense ‥ 论 07:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I should have been clearer; it was early morning.

In this case, we were previously discussing the Edward II article, in which his sexuality is discussed in the lede (in comparative detail, in fact), but the subject itself is buried in a subsection. I didn't mean to imply that a maximalist approach should be taken for all articles, nor is anyone else (I hope). I was still talking about that article but I now see that other articles had also been mentioned which I didn't notice. I haven't checked those specifically to see if it's a defining category.

Either way, if there's disagreement about a category added as per WP:BEBOLD, it's relatively straightforward to remove it again and this will likely generate more discussion than a new topic on a talk page will. And as per WP:DEFINING, an article can always be added to a list if people disagree about adding it to a category, so there's an easy solution if consensus can't be reached. Lewisguile (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for Feedback Re: using former name for well known trans poet/academic Stephanie Burt

Hello -- was hoping to get a bit more feedback on this Talk page request about including Stephanie Burt's former name. Thank you for your assistance. Jessamyn (my talk page) 21:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Improvement Request for LGBTQ+ media

Hello all,

LGBTQ+ media could use some love, particularly with globalizing the article's focus. It could also use some a description of the historical change in media representation and the effects of that. Many of the sources (Google Books) are also all f'd up and could deffo use replacing. I'm certain that there are other issues as well.

Add a little or a lot; anything helps, especially because small edits can provide jumping-off points for other improvements.

Thanks all!

Happy to see what everyone does!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | 04:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for dispute resolution in Eleno de Céspedes

There is a dispute between User:Nikkimaria and myself in the article about historical character Eleno de Céspedes, specifically whether a certain original drawing of Eleno uploaded by an user can be used the illustrate the article or not. I argue the drawing fits Wikipedia's policies on original images as readable here, while Nikkimaria argues it does not. I therefore request users to visit the talk page and opine. Thank you in advance. Baal Nautes (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute but wow. This article is bad in places. Lot's of speculative wording on uncited claims. It needs a pass from someone on this board and I'll probably give it a crack myself.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Reel Affirmations

Reel Affirmations has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heterosexual relationships among LGBTQ people#Requested move 26 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups that may be of interest to this group. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Improvement request for 21st century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom

Hi! I’m making an article on the anti trans movement in the UK, in a similar vein as 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States. Any help would be appreciated! Snokalok (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to restate the title. 21st century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Snokalok (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have copied some text from elsewhere on Wikipedia, resulting in errors due to refs with nonexistent names. Please, at minimum, repair attribution. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the refs and added WP:RIA dummy note for attribution. Raladic (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Improvement for Intersex healthcare advocacy

A few months ago I made the intersex healthcare article and added a to-do list for things to improve on the talk page. While I've worked on some of it, I was wondering if someone could help flesh out the advocacy section more. Thanks! Urchincrawler (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sissy Bar

I have nominated Sissy Bar (Portland, Oregon) for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:List of fictional pansexual characters

There is presently a discussion here as to whether an image, released by an official account, showing characters wearing clothes "resembling the pansexual pride flag" is enough to say that said characters are pansexual. Your comments in this discussion would be greatly appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

World AIDS Day editathon

Join Wikimedia LGBT+ and Dr Emily Garside to help improve Wikipedia’s coverage of AIDS cultural history in your language. 30 Nov 2024, English and Spanish, On Zoom. More details on Meta soon! —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

We need new images for LGBTQ sexuality.

There is an image for transgender-inclusive sex: File:Wiki-trans-cis lesbian sex.png. But there are no such image for transman sexuality. We need illustrations of penile-vaginal sex and other sex including trans people.

We require illustrations of opposite-gender same-genitalia sexual activities or same-gender heterogenital sexual activities immediately. Illustrations which describe same-gender same genitalia sexual activities of trans people will be eventually required. Sharouser (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Seedfeeder has been inactive for over a decade now, so we will not have any new "Wikipedia style sex illustrations", well, at least certainly not "immediately". Flounder fillet (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The linked image isn't currently used on English Wikipedia. Is there an article or project where an image like this is desired, let alone required immediately? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious to me that it's a particularly useful image for illustrating trans lesbian sex anyway – it could just as easily be read as cis-het sex. Indeed, of the three uses across the entire Wikimedia ecosystem, the one on en.wikiquote is accompanying a quote about heterosexual sex. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree; I can't imagine an enWP context where these would be explanatory, and several where it would be degrading. Transgender sexuality could use images, but not much is elucidated by literal depictions of transgender people having sex. Many already associate trans bodies primarily with fetish pornography, and conjuring mental images of our genitals is perhaps the one thing they have very little trouble with... –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 00:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Joseph McCarthy

Joseph McCarthy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)