Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject

LGBTQ studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase

    Request for dispute resolution in Eleno de Céspedes

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    World AIDS Day editathon

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    We need new images for LGBTQ sexuality.

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Joseph McCarthy

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Films about intersex#Requested move 14 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trans#Requested_move 15 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Anti-transgender activists

    [edit]

    I've translated from Russian Wikipedia Category:Anti-LGBTQ activists (well there was a similar but more specific category here though). There's Category:Anti-same-sex-marriage activists but none for anti-trans rights activists yet. Recently, Category:Feminism and transgender topics was renamed and purged. However, not every biography that were directly there was technically "anti-trans" (such as Buck Angel) I guess. Another possibility is to create Category:Gender-critical feminists based on gender-critical feminism mainspace article. I also created c:cat:Gender-critical people because some of them aren't feminists, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed on English Wikipedia. Though many would fall under wp:OPINIONCAT, some would qualify as defining. Also what title would be the best? The sentence from Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights could be used ("... that oppose transgender rights"), but that sounds like a WP:BLP issue. Web-julio (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe Theories Noticeboard Discussion

    [edit]

    There is a discussion at WP:FTN#Stephen B. Levine relevant to the wikiproject. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trembling Before G-d under FA review

    [edit]

    I have nominated Trembling Before G-d for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pride flag and Rainbow flag (LGBTQ)

    [edit]

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any difference between the topics of Pride flag and Rainbow flag (LGBTQ). Before I start a WP:MERGE discussion, maybe someone can explain it to me. The first line of Rainbow flag even bolds Pride flag as a synonym. (Here's one data point to consider.) Feel free to start a merge discussion if you like; I'm likely to be tied up for a few days. Please ping me to it, if you do, otherwise I'll get around to it eventually, barring something really persuasive here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pride flag is a parent article summarizing the 9 or so articles about pride flags, including Rainbow flag as well as other identity-specific pride flags like the Asexual flag, Transgender flag and Lesbian flags. We have enough to say about each of these individually that they qualify for their own articles. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup pretty much this. The Pride flag article is basically a WP:BROADCONCEPT-ish article about Pride flags and all the different Pride flags. Whereas the Rainbow flag one is specifically about the history of blue the rainbow flag.
    i don’t think merging them is in the best interest of our readers as it would bloat and blur it.
    Another reason for separating them is to not raise the importance of the rainbow flag over the pride flags of the other sub communities like trans, lesbian, ace, aro, intersex and so on, which all are also pride flags. Raladic (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people § Proposed update to CATLGBT. Raladic (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Presently a discussion is going on, which may be of interest to this WikiProject, at Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present#Splitting off 2020-2024 entries into new article when 2025 begins? about whether to split off the 2020-2024 entries of LGBTQ characters in January 2025 or to leave the article as is. Your contributions would be appreciated. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let Them See Us

    [edit]

    Hi!

    I just translated an article about Polish bilboard LGBT campaign Let Them See Us into English. If somebody could check my gramar and vocab, I would be glad.

    Also, it has only one reference, but so does the Polish article? Do you want me to find something more on the Polish net?

    Best wishes

    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes you should probably try to find more reliable sources for your new article at Let them see us as the bar can be higher on the English Wikipedia for notability or else someone may nominate the article for deletion. Raladic (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ;-)
    I found some resources. The article is, I think, finished, link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Let_them_see_us
    I wanted very badly to add some Gazeta Wyborcza reference, but sadly, no querry resulted with a link to an article T_T
    Please, tell me if I need to do something else with this article ;-)
    Best wishes
    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback welcome

    [edit]

    I made a property proposal here: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Non-binary population. I am not asking for support, but please give your feedback regarding what should be the property label. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Project members may wish to comment at this discussion. All opinions welcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ in Chile#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Singaporean literature#Requested move 24 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 03:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 04:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Standardizing 'by country' articles

    [edit]

    Our articles on LGBTQ people by country are quite inconsistent. There are variously articles titled LGBTQ people in foo, LGBTQ rights in foo, LGBTQ history in foo, LGBTQ culture in foo, etc., but little consistency between which countries have which articles. Often the articles contain content beyond what their name would suggest, just because it is the best available location for that content. There have been several proposed moves and related discussions on these articles in the past months, which has demonstrated the need for a centralized discussion.

    It would productive to establish a consensus on a model structure for these articles, so that the work to bring them into greater consistency can have a clear goal. To that end, I propose the following:

    • Every country should have LGBTQ people in foo as a WP:Broad-concept article.
    • Where there is enough content for a more specific topic to have its own article (on the rights, history, or culture of LGBTQ people in the country), there should be a WP:Summary style subsection in the broad-concept article.
    • LGBTQ in foo should redirect to the broad-concept article. Per. WP:BCA, disambiguation pages are not needed where the potential destination articles are conceptually linked and covered by a broad-concept article.

    LGBTQ people in Mexico and its sub-articles provide an example of this structure.--Trystan (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If we do choose to move forward with this (or a similar) standardization, I would be down to help work on such a project :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This works for me. Lewisguile (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that if there is a DAB page, I think it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" instead of "LGBTQ in X", which is grammatically wrong. Raladic (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the WP:BCA guideline suggests that DABs shouldn't exist in these situations: However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. There isn't really an ambiguous title in these situations that requires disambiguation between different meanings, but rather a general concept (LGBTQ people in foo) and sub-topics that spin off from that parent article. The BCA serves as the leaping off point to the more specific topics, so a DAB isn't needed.--Trystan (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup that's fair. So if there is a clear BCA, then we don't need a DAB, but I'm saying for cases where there might be ambiguity if a "LGBTQ people in X" has been properly refacted into the BCA, if there is a DAB, it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" so it is grammatically correct.
    Else when there is a BCA, all of those "LGBTQ in X" or "LGBTQ topics in X" should redirect to the BCA at "LGBTQ people in X" as we're now establishing as a consensus standard here. Raladic (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @MikutoH who has been involved in a lot of these discussions. Raladic (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that we may not want to assume that every country should have a separate "LGBTQ people in" page. Small countries or newly-formed states may be better covered as a section in a broader regional article. Doing a quick Google Scholar search to test this theory, I was sometimes able to quickly find country-specific sources (e.g. East Timor), but not for some others (e.g. San Marino, Seychelles, Maldives, South Sudan). Results for these searches suggest that e.g. LGBTQ people in Sub-Saharan Africa, would more accurately reflect the scope of available high-quality sources (e.g. [1]) signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. I suppose it would be more accurate to phrase it as, "Where reliable sources are available to create a stand-alone article (or articles) on LGBTQ people in a country, LGBTQ people in foo should be created as a WP:Broad-concept article."--Trystan (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I think the suggestion in general is great. I created this list Draft:List of LGBTQ topics. Though I'm not sure if it's a mix of Outline of LGBTQ topics and what would be a "LGBTQ by country" plus some related things in the same affix or similar naming. And I created with non-redirect (aka mainspace) articles only. I was also inspired by this table from Spanish-language version of this WikiProject. So it might be useful for y'all to fill the gaps, broaden the scope of some articles or rename (that would make the list inconsistent as time goes and no one updates it). LIrala (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rainbow crossings in Taipei

    [edit]

    New article: Rainbow crossings in Taipei

    Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender-affirming surgery (male-to-female)#Requested move 4 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 3 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]